Star Formation Theories PDF

Theory of Star Formation 1
Theory of Star Formation∗
Christopher F. McKee
Departments of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA
94720; cmckee@astro.berkeley.edu
arXiv:0707.3514v2 [astro-ph] 24 Jul 2007
Eve C. Ostriker
Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742;
ostriker@astro.umd.edu
Abstract
We review current understanding of star formation, outlining an overall theoretical frame-
work and the observations that motivate it. A conception of star formation has emerged
in which turbulence plays a dual role, both creating overdensities to initiate gravitational
contraction or collapse, and countering the effects of gravity in these overdense regions.
The key dynamical processes involved in star formation – turbulence, magnetic fields, and
self-gravity – are highly nonlinear and multidimensional. Physical arguments are used
to identify and explain the features and scalings involved in star formation, and results
from numerical simulations are used to quantify these effects. We divide star formation
into large-scale and small-scale regimes and review each in turn. Large scales range from
galaxies to giant molecular clouds (GMCs) and their substructures. Important problems
include how GMCs form and evolve, what determines the star formation rate (SFR), and
what determines the initial mass function (IMF). Small scales range from dense cores to
the protostellar systems they beget. We discuss formation of both low- and high-mass
stars, including ongoing accretion. The development of winds and outflows is increas-
ingly well understood, as are the mechanisms governing angular momentum transport in
disks. Although outstanding questions remain, the framework is now in place to build
a comprehensive theory of star formation that will be tested by the next generation of
telescopes.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
BASIC PHYSICAL PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Self-Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Magnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
MACROPHYSICS OF STAR FORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Physical State of GMCs, Clumps, and Cores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
∗
Posted with permission from the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume
c
45, 2007 by Annual Reviews, http://www.annualreviews.org
Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2007 45 XXX
Formation, Evolution, and Destruction of GMCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Core Mass Functions and the IMF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
The Large-Scale Rate of Star Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
MICROPHYSICS OF STAR FORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Low-Mass Star Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Disks and Winds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
High-Mass Star Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
OVERVIEW OF THE STAR FORMATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
1 INTRODUCTION
Stars are the “atoms” of the universe, and the problem of how stars form is at
the nexus of much of contemporary astrophysics. By transforming gas into stars,
star formation determines the structure and evolution of galaxies. By tapping the
nuclear energy in the gas left over from the Big Bang, it determines the luminosity
of galaxies and, quite possibly, leads to the reionization of the universe. Most
of the elements—including those that make up the world around us—are formed
in stars. Finally, the process of star formation is inextricably tied up with the
formation and early evolution of planetary systems.
The problem of star formation can be divided into two broad categories: “mi-
crophysics” and “macrophysics”. The microphysics of star formation deals with
how individual stars (or binaries) form. Do stars of all masses acquire most of
their mass via gravitational collapse of a single dense “core”? How are the prop-
erties of a star or binary determined by the properties of the medium out of
which it forms? How does the gas that goes into a protostar lose its magnetic
flux and angular momentum? How do massive stars form in the face of intense
radiation pressure? What are the properties of the protostellar disks, jets, and
outflows associated with Young Stellar Objects (YSOs), and what governs their
dynamical evolution?
The macrophysics of star formation deals with the formation of systems of
stars, ranging from clusters to galaxies. How are giant molecular clouds (GMCs),
the loci of most star formation, themselves formed out of diffuse interstellar gas?
What processes determine the distribution of physical conditions within star-
forming regions, and why does star formation occur in only a small fraction
of the available gas? How is the rate at which stars form determined by the
properties of the natal GMC or, on a larger scale, of the interstellar medium in a
galaxy? What determines the mass distribution of forming stars, the Initial Mass
Function (IMF)? Most stars form in clusters (Lada & Lada, 2003); how do stars
form in such a dense environment and in the presence of enormous radiative and
mechanical feedback from other YSOs?
Many of these questions, particularly those related to the microphysics of star
formation, were discussed in the classic review of Shu, Adams, & Lizano (1987).
Much has changed since then. Observers have made enormous strides in char-
acterizing star formation on all scales and in determining the properties of the
medium out of which stars form. Aided by powerful computers, theorists have
been able to numerically model the complex physical and chemical processes as-
sociated with star formation in three dimensions. Perhaps most important, a
new paradigm has emerged, in which large-scale, supersonic turbulence governs
the macrophysics of star formation.
2
This review focuses on the advances made in star formation since 1987, with an
emphasis on the role of turbulence. Recent relevant reviews include those on the
physics of star formation (Larson, 2003), and on the role of supersonic turbulence
in star formation (Mac Low & Klessen, 2004; Ballesteros-Paredes et al., 2007).
The chapter by Zinnecker & Yorke in this volume of ARAA provides a different
perspective on high-mass star formation, while that by Bergin & Tafalla gives a
more detailed description of dense cores just prior to star formation. Because the
topic is vast, we must necessarily exclude a number of relevant topics from this
review: primordial star formation (see Bromm & Larson, 2004), planet formation,
astrochemistry, the detailed physics of disks and outflows, radiative transfer, and
the properties of young stellar objects.
In §2, we begin with an overview of basic physical processes and scales in-
volved in star formation, covering turbulence (§2.1), self gravity (§2.2), and mag-
netic fields (§2.3). In §3, we review macrophysics of star formation, focusing
on: the physical state of GMCs, clumps, and cores (§3.1), the formation, evolu-
tion, and destruction of GMCs (§3.2), core mass functions and the IMF (§3.3),
and the large-scale rate of star formation (§3.4). §4 reviews microphysics of star
formation, covering low-mass star formation (§4.1), disks and winds (§4.2), and
high-mass star formation (§4.3). We conclude in §5 with an overview of the star
formation process.
2 BASIC PHYSICAL PROCESSES
2.1 Turbulence
As emphasized in §1, many of the advances in the theory of star formation since
the review of Shu, Adams, & Lizano (1987) have been based on realistic evalua-
tion and incorporation of the effects of turbulence. Turbulence is in fact impor-
tant in essentially all branches of astrophysics that involve gas dynamics1 , and
many communities have contributed to the recent progress in understanding and
characterizing turbulence in varying regimes. Here, we shall concentrate on the
parameter regimes of turbulence applicable within the cold ISM, and the physical
properties of these flows that appear particularly influential for controlling star
formation.
Our discussion provides an overview only; pointers will be given to excellent
recent reviews that summarize the large and growing literature on this subject.
General references include Frisch (1995), Biskamp (2003), and Falgarone & Pas-
sot (2003). A much more extensive literature survey and discussion of interstellar
turbulence, including both diffuse-ISM and dense-ISM regimes, is presented by
Elmegreen & Scalo (2004) and Scalo & Elmegreen (2004). A recent review fo-
cusing on the detailed physics of turbulent cascades in magnetized plasmas is
Schekochihin & Cowley (2005).
2.1.1 SPATIAL CORRELATIONS OF VELOCITY AND MAGNETIC
FIELDS Turbulence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a state
of “violent commotion, agitation, or disturbance,” with a turbulent fluid further
defined as one “in which the velocity at any point fluctuates irregularly.” Al-
though turbulence is by definition an irregular state of motion, a central concept
1
Chandrasekhar (1949) presaged this development, in choosing the then-new theory of tur-
bulence as the topic of his Henry Norris Russell prize lecture.
4 McKee & Ostriker
is that order nevertheless persists as scale-dependent spatial correlations among

the flow variables. These correlations can be measured in many ways; common
mathematical descriptions include autocorrelation functions, structure functions,
and power spectra.
One of the most fundamental quantities, which is also one of the most in-
tuitive to understand, is the RMS velocity difference between two points sepa-
rated by a distance r. With the velocity structure function of order p defined
as Sp (r) ≡ h|v(x) − v(x + r)|p i, this quantity is given as ∆v(r) ≡ [S2 (r)]1/2 .
The autocorrelation function of the velocity is related to the structure func-
tion: A(r) ≡ hv(x) · v(x + r)i = h|v|2 i − S2 (r)/2; note that the autocorrelation
with zero lag is A(0) = h|v|2 i since S2 (0) = 0. The power spectrum of velocity,
P (k) ≡ |v(k)|2 , is the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function. For zero
mean velocity, the velocity dispersion averaged over a volume ℓ3 , σv (ℓ)2 , is equal
to the power spectrum integrated with kmin = 2π/ℓ. If turbulence is isotropic
and the system in which it is observed is spatially symmetric with each dimension
≈ ℓ, then the one-dimensional velocity dispersion along a given line-of-sight (a
direct observable)
√ will be related to the three-dimensional velocity dispersion by
σ = σv (ℓ)/ 3. Analogous structure functions, correlation functions, and power
spectra can also be defined for the magnetic field, as well as other fluid variables
including the density (see §2.1.4). Delta-variance techniques provide similar in-
formation, and are particularly useful for reducing edge effects when making
comparisons with observational data (Bensch, Stutzki, & Ossenskopf, 2001).
For isotropic turbulence, Sp and A are functions only of r = |r|, and P is a
function only of k = |k|. The Fourier amplitude |v(k)| is then (on average) only
a function of ℓ = 2π/k, and can be denoted by v(ℓ); to emphasize that these
velocities are perturbations about a background state, the amplitude of a given
Fourier component is often written as δv(k) or δv(ℓ). When there is a large
dynamic range between the scales associated with relevant physical parameters
(see §2.1.3), correlations often take on power-law forms. If P (k) ∝ k−n for an
isotropic flow, then
v(ℓ) ∝ σv (ℓ) ∝ ∆v(ℓ) ∝ ℓq (1)
with q = (n − 3)/2. Sometimes indices n′ of one-dimensional (angle-averaged),
rather than three-dimensional, power spectra are reported; these are related by
n′ = n − 2.
The turbulent scaling relations reflect the basic physics governing the flow. The
classical theory of Kolmogorov (1941) applies to incompressible flow, i.e. one in
which the velocities are negligible compared to the thermal speed σth = (Pth /ρ)1/2
(where ρ is the density and Pth is the thermal pressure); σth is equal to the sound
speed cs = (γPth /ρ)1/2 in an isothermal (γ = 1) gas. In incompressible flows,
energy is dissipated and turbulent motions are damped only for scales smaller
than the Reynolds scale ℓν at which the viscous terms in the hydrodynamic
equations, ∼ νv(ℓ)/ℓ2 , exceed the nonlinear coupling terms between scales, ∼
v(ℓ)2 /ℓ; here ν is the kinematic viscosity. At scales large compared to ℓν , and
small compared to the system as a whole, the rate of specific energy transfer Ė
between scales is assumed to be conserved, and equal to the dissipation rate at the
Reynolds scale. From dimensional analysis, Ė ∼ v(ℓ)3 /ℓ, which implies n = 11/3
and q = 1/3 for the so-called “inertial range” in Kolmogorov turbulence. The
Kolmogorov theory includes the exact result that S3 (ℓ) = −(4/5)E˙ ℓ.
Because velocities v(ℓ) ∼ σv (ℓ) ∼ ∆v(ℓ) in molecular clouds are in general
not small compared to cs , at least for sufficently large ℓ, one cannot expect the
Kolmogorov theory to apply. In particular, some portion of the energy at a given
scale must be directly dissipated via shocks, rather than cascading conservatively
through intermediate scales until ℓν is reached. In the limit of zero pressure,
the system would consist of a network of (overlapping) shocks; this state is often
referred to as Burgers turbulence (Frisch & Bec, 2001). Since the power spectrum
corresponding to a velocity discontinuity in one dimension has P (k) ∝ k−2 , an
isotropic system of shocks in three dimensions would also yield power-law scalings
for the velocity correlations, with n = 4 and q = 1/2. Note that correlations can
take on a power-law form even if there is not a conservative inertial cascade; a
large range of spatial scales with consistent physics is still required.
Turbulence in a magnetized system must differ from the unmagnetized case be-
cause of the additional wave families and nonlinear couplings involved, as well as
the additional diffusive processes – including resistive and ion-neutral drift terms
(see §2.1.3). When
√ the magnetic field B is strong, in the sense that the Alfvén
speed vA ≡ B/ 4πρ satisfies vA ≫ v(ℓ), a directionality is introduced such that
the correlations of the flow variables may depend differently on rk , r⊥ , kk , and
k⊥ , the displacement and wavevector components parallel and perpendicular to
B̂.
For incompressible magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence, Goldreich & Srid-
har (1995) introduced the idea of a critically-balanced anisotropic cascade, in
which the nonlinear mixing time perpendicular to the magnetic field and the
propagation time along the magnetic field remain comparable for wavepackets at
all scales, so that vA kk ∼ v(k⊥ , kk )k⊥ . Interactions between oppositely-directed
Alfvén wavepackets travelling along magnetic fields cannot change their parallel
wavenumbers kk = k · B̂, so that the energy transfers produced by these collisions
involve primarily k⊥ ; i.e. the cascade is through spatial scales ℓ⊥ = 2π/k⊥ with
v(ℓ⊥ )3 /ℓ⊥ ∼ constant. Combining critical balance with a perpendicular cascade
yields anisotropic power spectra (larger in the k⊥ direction); at a given level of
2/3
power, the theory predicts kk ∝ k⊥ . Magnetic fields and velocities are predicted
to have the same power spectra.
Unfortunately, for the case of strong compressibility (cs ≪ v) and moderate or
strong magnetic fields (cs ≪ vA ∼ < v), which generally applies within molecular
clouds, there is as yet no simple conceptual theory to characterize the energy

transfer between scales and to describe the spatial correlations in the velocity
and magnetic fields. On global scales, the flow may be dominated by large-
scale (magnetized) shocks which directly transfer energy from macroscopic to
microscopic degrees of freedom. Even if velocity differences are not sufficient
to induce (magnetized) shocks, for trans-sonic motions compressibility implies
strong coupling among all the MHD wave families. On the other hand, within a
sufficiently small sub-volume of a cloud (and away from shock interfaces), velocity
differences may be sufficiently subsonic that the incompressible MHD limit and
the Alfvénic cascade approximately hold locally.
Even without direct energy transfer from large to small scales in shocks, a key
property of turbulence not captured in classical models is intermittency effects –
the strong (space-time) localization of dissipation in vortex sheets or filaments,
which can occur even with a conservative energy cascade. (Shocks in compressible
flows represent a different class of intermittent structures.) Signatures of inter-
mittency are particularly evident in departures of high-order structure function
6 McKee & Ostriker
exponents from the value p/3, and in non-Gaussian tails of velocity-increment

probability distribution functions (PDFs) (e.g. Sreenivasan & Antonia, 1997;
Lis et al., 1996). Proposed methods to account for intermittency in predicting
correlation functions for incompressible, unmagnetized turbulence have been dis-
cussed by She & Leveque (1994) and Dubrulle (1994). Boldyrev (2002) proposed
an adaptation of this framework for the compressible MHD case, but omitted
direct dissipation of large-scale modes in shocks. Research on formal turbulence
theory is quite active (see Elmegreen & Scalo, 2004 for a review of the recent
theoretical literature relevant to the ISM), although a comprehensive framework
remains elusive.
Large-scale numerical simulations afford a complementary theoretical approach
to model turbulence and to explore the spatial correlations within flows. Numer-
ical experiments can be used to test formal theoretical proposals, and to provide
controlled, quantitative means to interpret observations – within the context of
known physics – when formal theories are either nonexistant or limited in detail.
In drawing on the results of numerical experiments, it is important to ensure that
the computational techniques employed adequately capture the relevant dynam-
ical processes. For systems in which there are steep gradients of velocities and
densities, grid-based methods are more accurate in following details of the evolv-
ing flow (such as development of instabilities) than SPH methods, which have
been shown to have difficulty capturing shocks and other discontinuities (Agertz
et al., 2006).
Spatial correlations within turbulent flows have been evaluated using numerical
simulations in a variety of regimes. Overall, results are consistent with theoretical
predictions in that power-law scalings in the velocity and magnetic field power
spectra (or structure functions) are clear when there is sufficient numerical res-
olution to separate driving and dissipative scales. At resolutions of 5123 and
above, results with a variety of numerical methods show angle-averaged power-
law slopes n = 7/2−11/3 (i.e. 3.5−3.67) for incompressible (i.e. v/cs ≪ 1) MHD
flows (Müller, Biskamp, & Grappin, 2003; Haugen, Brandenburg, & Dobler, 2004;
Müller & Grappin, 2005) and n = 3.5 − 4.0 for strongly compressible (v/cs ∼ > 5)
flows both with (Vestuto, Ostriker, & Stone, 2003; Padoan et al., 2007) and
without (Kritsuk, Norman, & Padoan, 2006) magnetic fields. Consistent with
expectations, spectra are steeper for compressive velocity components than for
magnetic fields (and also sheared velocity components if the magnetic field is
moderate or strong), and steeper for more supersonic and/or more weakly mag-
netized models (see also Boldyrev, Nordlund, & Padoan, 2002; Padoan et al.,
2004).
When strong mean magnetic fields are present, there is clear anisotropy in the
power spectrum, generally consistent with the scaling prediction of Goldreich &
Sridhar (1995), for both incompressible and compressible MHD turbulence (Cho
& Vishniac, 2000; Maron & Goldreich, 2001; Cho, Lazarian, & Vishniac, 2002a;
Vestuto, Ostriker, & Stone, 2003; Cho & Lazarian, 2003).
In order to identify the sources of turbulence in astronomical systems, it is
also important to determine the behavior of velocity and magnetic field correla-
tions on spatial scales larger than the driving scale. Numerical simulations, both
for incompressible (Maron & Goldreich, 2001; Haugen, Brandenburg, & Dobler,
2004) and compressible MHD turbulence (Vestuto, Ostriker, & Stone, 2003),
show that the power spectra below the driving wavenumber scale are nearly flat,
n ≈ 0; that is, “inverse cascade” effects are limited. For spatially-localized forc-
ing (rather than forcing localized in k-space), Nakamura & Li (2007) also found
a break in the power spectrum, at wavelength comparable to the momentum in-
jection scale. Thus, the forcing scale for internally-driven turbulence in a system
can be inferred observationally from the peak or knee of the velocity correlation
function. If v(ℓ) continues to rise up to ℓ ∼ L, the overall scale of a system, this
implies that turbulence is either (i) externally driven, (ii) imposed in the initial
conditions when the system is formed, or (iii) driven internally to reach large
scales. Note that for systems forced at multiple scales, or both internally and
externally, breaks may be evident in the velocity correlation function (or power
spectrum).
2.1.2 TURBULENT DISSIPATION TIMESCALES Recent numerical
simulations under quite disparate physical regimes have reached remarkably sim-
ilar conclusions for the dissipation rates of turbulence. On dimensional grounds,
the specific energy dissipation rate should equal ǫU 3 /ℓ0 , where E = U 2 /2 is the
total specific kinetic energy, ℓ0 is the spatial wavelength of the main energy-
containing scale (comparable to the driving scale for forced turbulence; ℓ0 ≤ L),
and ǫ is a dimensionless coefficient. For incompressible turbulence, the largest-
scale (40963 zones) incompressible, unmagnetized, driven-turbulence simulations
to date (Kaneda et al., 2003) yield a dimensionless dissipation coefficent ǫ = 0.6.
For driven incompressible MHD turbulence (at 10243 resolution), the measured
dimensionless dissipation rate ǫ ≡ (1/2)(Ėturb /Eturb )(ℓ0 /U ) also works out to be
ǫ = 0.6 (Haugen, Brandenburg, & Dobler, 2004). Quite comparable results also
hold for strongly-compressible (U/cs = 5) turbulence at a range of magnetiza-
tions vA /cs = 0 − 10; Stone, Ostriker, & Gammie (1998) found that ǫ = 0.6 − 0.7
for simulations at resolution up to 5123 zones. For decaying compressible MHD
turbulence, damping timescales are also comparable to the flow crossing time
ℓ0 /v(ℓ0 ) on the energy-containing scale (Stone, Ostriker, & Gammie, 1998; Mac
Low et al., 1998; Mac Low, 1999; Padoan & Nordlund, 1999). Thus, although
very different physical processes are involved in turbulence dissipation under dif-
ferent circumstances, the overall damping rates summed over all available chan-
nels (including shock, reconnection, and shear structures) are nevertheless quite
comparable. Defining the turbulent dissipation timescale as tdiss = Eturb /|Ėturb |
and the flow crossing time over the main energy-containing scale as tf = ℓ0 /U ,
√ the largest scale, ℓ0 → d,
tdiss = tf /(2ǫ). Since velocities in GMCs increase up to
the cloud diameter. Assuming that on average U = 3σlos , the turbulent dissi-
pation time based on numerical results is therefore given by
d
tdiss ≈ 0.5 . (2)
σlos
This result is in fact consistent with the assumption of Mestel & Spitzer (1956)
that turbulence in GMCs would decay within a crossing time.
The above results apply to homogenous, isotropic turbulence, but under cer-
tain circumstances if special symmetries apply, turbulent damping rates may be
lower. One such case is for incompressible turbulence consisting of Alfvén waves
all propagating in the same direction along the magnetic field. Note that for the
incompressibility condition ∇·v = 0 to apply, turbulent amplitudes must be quite
low (v ≪ cs ). Since Alfvén waves are exact solutions of the incompressible MHD
equations, no nonlinear interactions, and hence no turbulent cascade, can develop
if only waves with a single propagation direction are present in this case (see e.g.
Chandran, 2004 for a mathematical and physical discussion). A less extreme
8 McKee & Ostriker
situation is to have an imbalance in the flux of Alfvén waves propagating “up-

wards” and “downwards” along a given magnetic field direction. Maron & Gol-
dreich (2001) show that in decaying incompressible MHD turbulence, the power
in both upward- and downward-propagating components decreases together until
the lesser component is depleted. Cho, Lazarian, & Vishniac (2002a) quantify
decay times of imbalanced incompressible turbulence, finding for example that
if the initial imbalance is ≈ 50% or ≈ 70%, then the time to decay to half the
initial energy is increased by a factor 1.5 or 2.3, respectively, compared to the
case of no imbalance.
For even moderate-amplitude subsonic velocities, however, Alfvén waves couple
to other wave families and the purely Alfvénic cascade is lost. For strongly
supersonic motions, as are present in GMCs, the mode coupling is quite strong.
As a consequence, even a single circularly polarized Alfvén wave cannot propagate
without losses; a parametric instability known as the “decay instability” (Sagdeev
& Galeev, 1969) develops in which three daughter waves (a forward-propagating
compressive wave and two oppositely propagating Alfvén waves when β ≪ 1)
grow at the expense of the mother wave. The initial growth rate of the instability
is γ = (0.1 − 0.3) kvA when v(k)/cs = 1 − 3 and β ≡ 2c2s /vA 2 = 0.2, and larger for
greater amplitudes and smaller β (Goldstein, 1978). The ultimate result is decay
into fully-developed turbulence (Ghosh & Goldstein, 1994; Del Zanna, Velli, &
Londrillo, 2001). Thus, for conditions that apply within GMCs, even if there were
a localized source of purely Alfvénic waves (i.e. initially 100% imbalanced), the
power would rapidly be converted to balanced, broad-spectrum turbulence with
a short decay time. The conclusion that turbulent damping times within GMCs
are expected to be comparable to flow crossing times has important implications
for understanding evolution in star-forming regions; these will be discussed in
§§3.1 and 3.2.2.
2.1.3 PHYSICAL SCALES IN TURBULENT FLOWS In classical in-
compressible turbulence, the only physical scales that enter are the outer scale
ℓ0 at which the medium is stirred, and the inner “Reynolds” scale ℓν at which
viscous dissipation occurs. Assuming Kolmogorov scaling v(ℓ) = v(ℓ0 )(ℓ/ℓ0 )1/3
[for v(ℓ) ∼ σv (ℓ) ∼ ∆v(ℓ)], the dissipation scale is
3/4
ℓν ν
= ≡ Re−3/4 . (3)
ℓ0 ℓ0 v(ℓ0 )
Here Re ≡ v(ℓ0 )ℓ0 /ν is the overall Reynolds number of the flow; if turbulence
increases up to the largest scales then Re = U L/ν. With ν ∼ cs λmfp for λmfp the
mean free path for particle collisions, ℓν /ℓ0 ∼ (λmfp /ℓ0 )3/4 [v(ℓ0 )/cs ]−3/4 . In fact,
the velocity-size scaling within GMCs has power-law index q closer to 1/2 than
1/3 on large scales, because large-scale velocities are supersonic and therefore the
compressible-turbulence results apply. Allowing for a transition from q = 1/2 to
1/4 3/4
q = 1/3 at an intermediate scale ℓs where v(ℓs ) = cs (see below), ℓν = ℓs λmfp .
Using typical GMC parameters so that λmfp ∼ 1013 cm and ℓs ∼ 0.03 pc yields
ℓν ∼ 3 × 10−5 pc. This is tiny compared to the sizes, ∼ 0.1 pc, of self-gravitating
cores in which individual stars form.
The length ℓs introduced above marks the scale at which the RMS turbulent
velocity is equal to the sound speed. At larger scales, velocities are supersonic and
compressions are strong; at smaller scales, velocities are subsonic and compres-
sions are weak. Taking v(ℓ) = v(ℓ0 )(ℓ/ℓ0 )q , the sonic scale is ℓs = ℓ0 [cs /v(ℓ0 )]1/q ,
or ℓs ≈ ℓ0 [cs /v(ℓ0 )]2 when q ≈ 1/2. Density perturbations with characteristic

scales ∼ ℓs will have order-unity amplitude in an unmagnetized medium. In a
magnetized medium, the amplitude of the perturbation imposed by a flow of
speed v will depend on the direction of the flow relative to the magnetic field.
Flows along the magnetic field will be as for an unmagnetized medium, while
flows perpendicular to the magnetic field will create order-unity density pertur-
bations only if v > (c2s + vA 2 )1/2 . Note that the thermal scale, at which the
√
line-of-sight turbulent velocity dispersion σv / 3 is equal to the one-dimensional
thermal speed σth , is larger than ℓs by a factor ≈ 3.
Another scale that is important for MHD turbulence in fully-ionized gas is the
resistive scale; below this scale Ohmic diffusion would smooth out strong bends
in the magnetic field, or would allow folded field lines to reconnect. The resistive
scale ℓη is estimated by equating the diffusion term ∼ ηB(ℓ)/(4πℓ2 ) to the flux-
dragging term ∼ v(ℓ)B(ℓ)/ℓ in the magnetic induction equation. Defining the
magnetic Reynolds number as Rm ≡ v(ℓ0 )ℓ0 4π/η, and taking v(ℓ) ∼ cs (ℓ/ℓs )1/3
at small scales, this yields ℓη /ℓν = (Re/Rm)3/4 . Since the “magnetic Prandtl
number” Rm/Re is very large (∼ 106 ), this means that the magnetic field could,
for a highly-ionized medium, remain structured at quite small scales (see Cho,
Lazarian, & Vishniac, 2002b for discussion of this in the diffuse ISM).
In fact, under the weakly-ionized conditions in star-forming regions, ambipolar
diffusion (ion-neutral drift) becomes important well before the resistive (or Ohmic
diffusion) scale is reached. Physically, the characteristic ambipolar diffusion scale
ℓAD is the smallest scale for which the magnetic field (which is frozen to the
ions) is well-coupled to the bulk of the gas, for a partially-ionized medium. An
estimate of ℓAD is obtained by equating the ion-neutral drift speed, ∼ B0 δB(mi +
m)/(4πρi ραin ℓ), with the turbulent velocity, δv. Here, αin = hσin |vi − vn |i ≈
2 × 10−9 cm3 s−1 is the ion-neutral collision rate coefficient (Draine, Roberge, &
Dalgarno, 1983), and mi , m and ρi , ρ are the ion and neutral mass and density.
The resulting ambipolar diffusion√scale, assuming mi ≫ m (for either metal or
molecular cations) and δv ≈ δB/ 4πρ, is
vA vA ni −1
ℓAD = ≈ 0.05 pc . (4)
ni αin 3 km s−1 10−3 cm−3
Here, vA is the Alfvén speed associated with the large-scale magnetic field B0 .
The ambipolar diffusion scale (4) depends critically on the fractional ionization,
which varies greatly within star-forming regions. Regions with moderate AV ∼ < 5
can have relatively large ionization fraction due to UV photoionization, whereas

regions with large AV are ionized primarily by cosmic rays (see §2.3.1). For
example, if the electrons are attached to PAHs in dense cores, the ion density
is ni ≈ 10−3 (nH /104 cm−3 )1/2 (ζCR /3 × 10−17 s−1 )1/2 (Tielens, 2005) where ζCR
is the cosmic ray ionization rate per H atom.. Since ni ∝ n1/2 , we can express
equation (4) in terms of column density and magnetic field strength as ℓAD /ℓ =
0.09(B/10µG)/(NH /1021 cm−2 ).
For spatial wavelengths λ = 2π/k < πℓAD , MHD waves are unable to propagate
in the coupled neutral-ion fluid at all, because the collision frequency of neutrals
with ions, ni αin , is less than (half) the wave frequency ω = kvA . For λ > πℓAD ,
MHD waves are damped at a rate ωπℓAD /λ (Kulsrud & Pearce, 1969). Thus,
< ℓ
at scales ℓ ∼ AD , the magnetic field will be essentially straight and uniform in
magnitude, and any further turbulent cascade will be as for an unmagnetized
medium. The scale ℓAD is also comparable to the thickness of the C-type shocks
10 McKee & Ostriker
that are typical under prevailing conditions within GMCs (Draine & McKee,
1993). Further discussion of the interaction between turbulence and ambipolar
diffusion is given by Zweibel (2002), Fatuzzo & Adams (2002), and Heitsch et al.
(2004).
2.1.4 DENSITY STRUCTURE IMPOSED BY TURBULENCE When
turbulent velocities at a given scale are supersonic, they impose density varia-
tions within the flow at that scale. For star-forming regions, in which turbulent
velocities are increasingly supersonic for scales ∼ > 0.1 pc, the density becomes
strongly structured over a wide range of scales. This density structure – which
is crucial to the star-formation process – can be characterized statistically in a
variety of ways.
The simplest (one-point) statistic is the distribution of mass (or volume) as
a function of density, usually referred to as the density PDF (probability den-
sity function). For isothermal gas and supersonic turbulence (either forced or
decaying), a number of 3D numerical simulations both with (Ostriker, Stone, &
Gammie, 2001; Ostriker, 2003; Li et al., 2004) and without (Nordlund & Padoan,
1999; Klessen, 2000) magnetic fields have shown that the density PDF approaches
a log-normal distribution when self-gravity is unimportant. This functional form
can be understood (Vázquez-Semadeni, 1994; Passot & Vázquez-Semadeni, 1998)
to arise as a consequence of multiple, independent dynamical events that alter
the density according to ρ/ρ̄ = Πi (1 + δi ) where δi is > 0 (or < 0) for compres-
sions (or rarefactions). From the Central Limit Theorem, log(ρ/ρ̄) is the sum
of independent random variables, and should therefore approach a Gaussian dis-
tribution. When the equation of state departs from a simple isothermal form,
the density PDF still follows a log-normal over a range of densities, but aquires
power-law tails either at high or low density depending on whether the equation
of state is softer or stiffer than isothermal (Passot & Vázquez-Semadeni, 1998;
Scalo et al., 1998; see also e.g. Wada, 2001).
For a log-normal distribution, the fraction of volume (V ) or mass (M ) as a
function of x ≡ ln(ρ/ρ̄) is given by f (x)dx with
−(x ± |µx |)2

1
fV,M = exp (5)
2σx2
p
2πσx2
where the mean and dispersion of the distributions are related by µx = σx2 /2, and
the upper and lower signs correspond to volume- and mass-weighting, respec-
tively. For a log-normal distribution, the mass-weighted median density (half
of the mass is at densities above and below this value) is ρmed = ρ̄ exp(µx ),
whereas the mass-weighted mean density is hρiM = ρ̄ exp(2µx ). Based on three-
dimensional unmagnetized simulations, Padoan, Jones, & Nordlund (1997) pro-
pose that µx ≈ 0.5 ln(1 + 0.25M2 ). Other three-dimensional simulations with
magnetic fields (β = 0.02 − 2) have found µx ≈ 0.5 − 1 for M ≈ 5 − 10 (Os-
triker, Stone, & Gammie, 2001). These models confirm that the mean density
contrast generally grows as the turbulence level increases, but find no one-to-
one relationship between µx and M (or the fast magnetosonic Mach number,
MF ≡ σv /(c2s + vA 2 )1/2 ). The large scatter at large M is because the flow is
dominated by a small number of large-amplitude modes (i.e. large “cosmic vari-

ance”), some of which are compressive and some of which are shear. With mag-
netic fields, Ostriker, Stone, & Gammie (2001) found that the lower envelope of
the µx distribution increases with MF according to µx,min = 0.2 ln(1 + M2F ) + 0.5
for MF = 0.5 − 2.5.

Because the velocity field is spatially correlated, the density distribution will
also show spatial correlations over a range of scales. Density correlations can be
characterized in terms of the autocorrelation function, the power spectrum, and
structure functions of various orders (cf §2.1.1); usually, analyses are applied to
δρ ≡ ρ − ρ̄. Using delta-variance techniques, Mac Low & Ossenkopf (2000) show
that correlations in density decrease for wavelengths above the velocity driving
scale, and that there are relatively modest differences in the density correlations
between unmagnetized and magnetized models when all other properties are con-
trolled.
Kim & Ryu (2005) have analyzed the dependence of the spectral index on
Mach number for three-dimensional turbulence forced at large spatial scales, using
isothermal, unmagnetized simulations at resolution 5123 . For M ∼ < 1, the indices
nρ or n′ρ of the density power spectrum |δρ(k)|2 are similar to those of the velocity
field in incompressible turbulence – i.e. near n = 11/3 or n′ = 5/3; this is simply
because δρ(k)/ρ̄ ∼ −k̂ · v(k)/cs for low-amplitude quasi-sonic compressions (note
that even when M = 1, the Mach number for the compressive component of the
velocity field is < 1). As the Mach number increases, the density power spectrum
flattens, reaching n′ρ ≈ 0.5 for M = 12. For comparison, a one-dimensional top
hat – corresponding to a large clump in 3D – would have n′ρ = 2, whereas a
one-dimensional delta function – corresponding to a thin sheet or filament in 3D
– would have n′ρ = 0. Note that for the density to take the form of multiple
delta functions, the velocity field must generally be a composite of step functions
– corresponding to shocks – and has n′ = 2 for the velocity power spectrum (as
discussed above). The low value of n′ρ at large Mach number implies the density
structure becomes dominated by curved sheets and filaments. Curved sheets
represent stagnation regions (of the compressive velocity field) where shocked
gas from colliding flows settles, and filaments mark the intersections of these
curved sheets.
Other statistical descriptions of density structure include fractal dimensions
(e.g., Elmegreen & Falgarone, 1996; Stutzki et al., 1998), multifractal spectra
(Chappell & Scalo, 2001), and hierarchical structure trees (Houlahan & Scalo,
1992); see Elmegreen & Scalo (2004) for a discussion. The spatial correlation
of density can also be characterized in terms of clump mass functions. Clump-
finding techniques have been applied to simulations of supersonic tubulent flows
by a number of groups; these results will be discussed and compared to observa-
tions in §3.3.
2.1.5 OBSERVATIONS OF TURBULENCE For observed astrophysical
systems, the intrinsic properties of turbulence cannot be directly obtained, due
to line-of-sight projection and the convolution of density and velocity in produc-
ing observed emission. A number of different techniques have been developed,
calibrated using simulations, and applied to observed data, in order to deduce
characteristics of the three-dimensional turbulent flow from the available obser-
vations, which include spectral line data cubes (from molecular transitions), con-
tinuum emission maps (from dust), maps of extinction (using background stars),
and maps of polarization (in extinction and emission from dust). Elmegreen &
Scalo (2004) review the extensive literature on observations of turbulence. Here,
we will mention just a few results.
The defining property of turbulent motion – in contrast to, for example, the
12 McKee & Ostriker
purely random motions of gas particles in a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution or

the highly systematic motions of stars in a rotating system – is the stochastic yet
scale-dependent behavior of flow correlations. Larson (1981) was the first to draw
attention to the genuine “turbulent” nature of motions internal to star-forming
regions, as expressed by an empirical scaling law of the form (1) with q = 0.38.
Using more homogeneous data, Solomon et al. (1987) obtained a “linewidth-size”
scaling index q ≈ 0.5 for GMCs as a whole. Passot, Pouquet, & Woodward (1988)
pointed out that the linewidth-size scaling σv (ℓ) ∝ ℓ1/2 observed in star-forming
regions is indeed what would be predicted for “Burgers turbulence,” a more
appropriate model than Kolmogorov turbulence given the strongly supersonic
conditions.
Many subsequent studies have been made of observed scaling behavior of ve-
locities, both for subsystems of a given star-forming region, and for systems that
are spatially disjoint. A number of methods have been developed for these inves-
tigations, including autocorrelation analysis (Miesch & Bally, 1994) and delta-
variance analysis (Ossenkopf et al., 2006) applied to line centroids, the spectral
correlation function (Rosolowsky et al., 1999), velocity channel analysis (Lazar-
ian & Pogosyan, 2004; Padoan et al., 2006), and principal component analy-
sis (PCA) (Brunt & Heyer, 2002). Overall, analyses agree in finding power-law
linewidth-size relations, with similar coefficients and power-law expononents close
to q = 0.5. The lack of features in velocity correlations at intermediate scales,
and more generally the secular increase in velocity dispersion up to sizes compa-
rable to the whole of a GMC, indicates that turbulence is driven on large scales
within or external to GMCs (e.g. Ossenkopf & Mac Low, 2002; Brunt, 2003).
Interestingly, turbulence appears to have a “universal” character within most of
the molecular gas in the Milky Way, in the sense that the same scaling laws with
the same coeffcients fit both entire GMCs and moderate-density substructures
(observed via CO lines) within them. Using PCA, Heyer & Brunt (2004) find a
fit to the amplitudes of line-of-sight velocity components as a function of scale
following
Lpca 0.56±0.02

δv = 0.9 km s−1 (6)
1 pc
based on composite data of all PCA components from scales Lpca ∼ 0.03−30 pc in
a sample of 27 molecular clouds. Using data just within individual clouds, Heyer
& Brunt (2004) find a mean scaling exponent that is slightly lower, q = 0.49±0.15.
Note that the lengths Lpca entering the relation (6) are the characteristic scales
of PCA eigenmodes, and may differ from size scales defined in other ways. For
example, the effective GMC cloud diameters as measured by Solomon et al. (1987)
are on average about four times the maximum Lpca found in each cloud. Based
on the scaling law (6) the sonic length will be similar, ℓs ∼ 0.03 pc (allowing for
varying definitions of size), in all GMCs. We discuss this empirical result further
in §3.1; note that strongly self-gravitating clumps with high densities and surface
densities depart from the relation given in equation (6).
For evaluating the density distribution, the most unbiased measurements use
dust extinction maps (see Lada, Alves, & Lombardi, 2007 and references therein).
A promising new technique for observing the density distribution uses scattered
infrared light (Foster & Goodman, 2006), which can probe the structure of molec-
ular clouds for visual extinctions of 1 − 20 magnitudes at very high spatial res-
olution (Padoan, Juvela, & Pelkonen, 2006). Consistent with the prediction of
numerical simulations (Ostriker, Stone, & Gammie, 2001; Vázquez-Semadeni &

Garcı́a, 2001), distributions of extinction follow log-normal functional forms to
an excellent approximation; distributions of integrated intensity from molecular
lines, on the other hand, are not log-normal (Ridge et al., 2006), presumably
due to a combination of chemistry and/or optical depth effects. Column density
distributions of course cannot be directly inverted to obtain volume density dis-
tributions. Since the Fourier transform of the column density, N (kx , ky ), is equal
to δρ(kx , ky ; kz = 0) (up to an overall normalization; here z is the line-of-sight
direction), if statistical isotropy holds then at least the shape of the density power
spectrum can be obtained from a well-sampled map of column density. Assum-
ing isotropy, integrated-intensity 12 CO and 13 CO line maps yield density power
spectra |δρ(k)|2 ∝ k−nρ with nρ = 2.5 − 2.8 (Bensch, Stutzki, & Ossenskopf,
2001), which is consistent with the large-M results for density power spectra
n′ρ = nρ − 2 ≈ 0.5 obtained in the simulations of Kim & Ryu (2005). In princi-
ple, features in the density power spectrum should be evident both at the sonic
scale, ℓs , and the Jeans scale (these scales are comparable in star-forming regions
– Padoan, 1995). A first step toward identifying features in the density power
spectrum, using velocity-integrated CO intensity, was taken by Blitz & Williams
(1997). It will be very interesting to investigate column density power spectra
based on high-resolution extinction maps in both self-gravitating GMCs and un-
bound molecular clouds, evaluating the slopes and searching for evidence of these
breaks.
Other measures of density structure, including the fractal dimension D ≈ 2.3
empirically measured by Elmegreen & Falgarone (1996), are in agreement with
simulations of strongly compressible turbulence (Kritsuk, Norman, & Padoan,
2006). In addition, the typical range of density contrasts obtained for 3D su-
personic turbulence (see §2.1.4) is consistent with the compressions required to
explain the low effective volume filling factors of gas deduced from CO obser-
vations of GMCs (Ostriker, Gammie, & Stone, 1999). If hln(n/n̄)iM = µx (eq.
5), then the mass-weighted mean density is hn/n̄iM = h(n/n̄)2 iV = exp(2µx ), so
that µx ≈ 1.5 yields a local density n = 103 when n̄ = 50, in agreement with
inferred filling factors ∼ 0.1 (Bally et al., 1987; Williams, Blitz, & Stark, 1995).
Observational estimates of the density and filling factor are often made under
the assumption of a constant clump density, however, not the broad distribution
of densities expected for a log normal, which may introduce some differences. In
more detail, Padoan et al. (1999) have shown that the statistical properties of
13 CO spectra seen in the star-forming Perseus molecular cloud can be well repro-
duced by synthetic non-LTE spectra created using simulation data cubes from
non-self-gravitating supersonic turbulence simulations.
2.2 Self-Gravity
The effects of self-gravity on a turbulent cloud can be analyzed with the aid of
the virial theorem, which in Lagrangian form (i.e., for a fixed mass) is
1¨
I = 2(T − Ts ) + B + W (7)
2
(Chandrasekhar & Fermi, 1953b; Mestel & Spitzer, 1956), where I = r 2 dm is
R
proportional to the trace of the inertia tensor of the cloud. (It is often assumed
that the sign of I¨ determines whether the cloud is expanding or contracting, but in
14 McKee & Ostriker
fact it determines the acceleration of the expansion or contraction—Ballesteros-

Paredes, 2006.) The term
Z
3 1 2 3
T = Pth + ρv dV ≡ ρ̄σ 2 Vcl (8)
Vcl 2 2 2
is the total kinetic energy in the cloud (thermal plus bulk), where σ 2 is the
1D mean square velocity (including both thermal σth 2 and nonthermal [turbulent]
2 2
H
σnt ≡ σv /3 terms) in the cloud, Vcl is the volume of the cloud, and Ts = Pth r·dS
is the surface kinetic term. The term
1 1 1
Z I
B= B 2 dV + r · (BB − B 2 I) · dS (9)
8π Vcl 4π 2
is the net magnetic energy, including the effects of the distortion of the field
outside the cloud. The volume and surface magnetic terms cancel for a completely
uniform magnetic field, since a uniform field exerts no force. Finally,
Z
W = − ρr · ∇Ψ dV (10)
R
is the gravity term, equal to the gravitational self-energy (1/2) ρΨ dV provided
the acceleration due to masses outside the system is negligible (as is generally
the case for dense clouds embedded in a diffuse turbulent background—Dib et
al., 2007).
The virial theorem can also be written in Eulerian form, so that it applies to
a fixed volume (McKee & Zweibel, 1992); in that H case, the surface term for the
kinetic energy includes the dynamic pressure ρvv · dS, and the theorem itself
includes a term (1/2)(d/dt) (ρvr 2 ) · dS on the left-hand side. This form of the
R
virial theorem is particularly appropriate in a turbulent medium, in which the
mass of a cloud is not necessarily fixed. With this form of the equation, clouds
that are actively forming or dispersing may have surface kinetic terms comparable
to the volume kinetic terms.
Ballesteros-Paredes, Vázquez-Semadeni, & Scalo (1999) examined the various
terms in the Eulerian virial theorem for clumps and cores in their turbulent, self-
gravitating MHD simulations, and found that the time-dependent terms on the
left-hand side are significant, and that the surface terms are generally comparable
to the volume terms. Dib et al. (2007) confirmed this and also found that only
objects with large density contrasts are virialized. However, in contrast to the
other terms in the virial theorem, the time-dependent terms can change sign, so
they become less important if the virial theorem is averaged over time for an
individual cloud (provided the cloud lives more than a dynamical time) or if it
is averaged over an ensemble of clouds (McKee, 1999). In §3.1, we discuss the
application of the virial theorem both to observed molecular clouds, clumps, and
cores, and to condensations identified within numerical simulations.
The virial parameter is defined to be proportional to the ratio of the total
kinetic energy to the gravitational energy (Bertoldi & McKee, 1992; cf. Falgarone,
Puget, & Perault, 1992),
5σ 2 R
αvir ≡ , (11)
GM
where the numerical coefficient is chosen so that αvir = 1 for a uniform, unmag-
netized gas sphere in virial balance (W = −2T ; but note that such a sphere is
not in hydrostatic equilibrium). This relation implies that the mean pressure in
a cloud varies as the square of the mean surface density, Σ̄,
P̄tot = φP̄ GΣ̄2 , (12)
where φP̄ ∝ αvir is a numerical factor of order unity for gravitationally bound
objects (McKee & Tan, 2003). The total pressure includes the magnetic pres-
sure; fluctuating magnetic fields have an energy that is about 60% of that of
the turbulent kinetic energy (Stone, Ostriker, & Gammie, 1998) and contribute
an effective pressure support that is about 30% of the turbulent kinetic pressure
support (McKee & Tan, 2003) (note that T − Ts and B appear in equation 7 with
coefficients 2 and 1, respectively). Gravitationally bound objects have αvir ∼ 1,
which (since M ∼ ρR3 ) defines gravitational length, time, and mass scales,
RG = σ/(Gρ)1/2 , tG = 1/(Gρ)1/2 , MG = σ 3 /(G3 ρ)1/2 . (13)
These scales, derived essentially from dimensional analysis, govern the structure
and stability of self-gravitating clouds (the density ρ can be chosen to be the
central density, the mean density, or the density at the surface, depending on
the application). The gravitational time scale is often expressed in terms of the
free-fall time, which is the time for a pressure-free, spherical cloud to collapse to
a point due to its self-gravity,
1/2
3π 1/2
3
10 cm−3

tff = = 1.37 × 106 yr, (14)
32Gρ̄ n̄H
where the numerical value is based on a He abundance of 10% by number.
The simplest case of a self-gravitating cloud is a static isothermal cloud with
no magnetic field. For a given surface pressure Pth, 0 = ρ0 σth2 , the critical mass
Mcr —i.e., the maximum mass for such a cloud to be in hydrostatic equilibrium
(stable or unstable)—is the Bonnor-Ebert mass (Bonnor, 1956; Ebert, 1957),
4
σth 3
σth
MBE ≡ 1.182 = 1.182 . (15)
(G3 Pth, 0 )1/2 (G3 ρ0 )1/2
For conditions typical of dense clumps within low-mass star-forming regions, this
is of order a solar mass: MBE = 0.66(T /10 K)2 /(Pth /3 × 105 kB cm−3 K)1/2 M⊙ ,
where kB is Boltzmann’s constant and the pressure is normalized to the mean
kinetic pressure in a typical GMC (§3.1) (which is similar to the mean thermal
pressure in dense clumps). Note that the Bonnor-Ebert mass is very nearly
equal to the characteristic gravitational mass MG (ρ0 ), when evaluated with the
conditions at the surface of the cloud. The radius of a Bonnor-Ebert sphere is
RBE = 0.486σth /(Gρ0 )1/2 = 0.486RG (ρ0 ); this is comparable to the Jeans length
(see below).
The importance of the magnetic field to cloud structure is determined by the
ratio of the mass to the magnetic critical mass MΦ , which is defined by the
condition that the magnetic energy equal the gravitational energy, B = |W|, for
a cold cloud in magnetostatic equilibrium:
Φ
MΦ ≡ cΦ , (16)
G1/2
where Φ is the magnetic flux threading the cloud (e.g., see the review by McKee
et al., 1993). Magnetic fields alone cannot prevent gravitational collapse in mag-
netically supercritical clouds (M > MΦ ), whereas gravitational collapse is not
16 McKee & Ostriker
possible in magnetically subcritical clouds (M < MΦ ); keep in mind, however,

that M can change as the result of flows along the field, and MΦ can change due
to ambipolar diffusion. The numerical coefficient cΦ depends on the internal dis-
tribution of density and magnetic fields. A cold cloud with a poloidal field and
a constant mass-to-flux ratio has cΦ = 0.17 (Tomisaka, Ikeuchi, & Nakamura,
1988), essentially identical to the critical value of the mass-to-flux ratio for an in-
finite cold sheet, G1/2 (Σ/B)cr = 1/(2π) ≃ 0.16 (Nakano & Nakamura, 1978). For
clouds with two other distributions of the mass-to-flux ratio, Tomisaka, Ikeuchi,
& Nakamura (1988) found that the critical mass-to-flux ratio for the central flux
tube corresponds to cΦ ≃ 0.17 − 0.18. For more complex field geometries, the
magnetic flux does not determine the mass that can be supported by magnetic
stresses; for example, if the field is poloidal, with half the field pointing one way
and half the other, so that the total flux is zero, the mass that could be sup-
ported would initially be MΦ , but it would go to zero as the field reconnects. For
a random field, arguments based on McKee & Holliman (1999) suggest that the
mass that can be supported by magnetic fields is comparable to that in equation
(16), but with Φ replaced by πR2 hB 2 i1/2 . Of course, when turbulent magnetic
fields are present so are turbulent velocities, which lend their own support to the
cloud (see below).
The magnetic critical mass can also be expressed in terms of the mean density
and magnetic field in the cloud (Mouschovias & Spitzer, 1976),
MΦ 3

MB
≡ . (17)
M M
For an ellipsoidal cloud of size 2Z along the axis of symmetry and radius R
normal to the axis, this becomes (Bertoldi & McKee, 1992)
2 3 2 3 3 2
3 R v̄A R B̄ 10 cm−3
MB = 79cΦ = 1020 M⊙ ,
Z (G3 ρ̄)1/2 Z 30 µG n̄H
(18)
where the latter expression uses cΦ = 1/(2π). Note that MB has the same form as
the gravitational mass MG , with the velocity dispersion σ replaced by the Alfvén
velocity v̄A ≡ B̄/(4π ρ̄)1/2 . Based on the idea that cores form from sheets that
are supported by kinetic pressure along the magnetic field and magnetic tension
in the (perpendicular) plane, Shu, Li, & Allen (2004) have introduced another
mass scale, M0 ≡ π 2 σ 4 /(G3/2 B̄), which yields values ∼ M⊙ when σ → σth and
B̄ → 30 µG.
Just as in the case of stellar structure, it is useful to consider polytropic models
of molecular clouds, in which the pressure is a power-law function of the density,
P (r) = Kρ(r)γp , (19)
where K is constant and γp is often written as 1 + 1/n. Here, P (r) and ρ(r)
represent the total pressure and density averaged over the surface of a sphere of
radius r. This approach is based on the microturbulent approximation, in which
the turbulent pressure ρσnt 2 is included in the total pressure (Chandrasekhar,
1951a,b); this is equivalent to assuming that the random dynamical motions

are isotropic. For a given cloud at a given time, this is reasonable for small-scale
motions, but the approximation becomes worse as the scale of the motion becomes
comparable to the scale on which the pressure is being evaluated. However, just
as in the case of the virial theorem, the microturbulent approximation becomes

better – for objects that live more than a dynamical time – if a time average
is taken. Polytropes are spherical, so polytropic models apply only to objects
with well-defined centers; for such objects, an angular average is also necessary,
which improves the accuracy of the microturbulent approximation. Star-forming
clumps and cores often appear centrally concentrated and are therefore suitable
for modeling with a polytrope, whereas many GMCs do not appear to have well-
defined centers and are not very suitable for polytropic models.
For a polytrope, the velocity dispersion obeys σ 2 = P/ρ ∝ ργp −1 . If the mean
density decreases with increasing scale (as it does for an object in hydrostatic equi-
librium), it follows that the velocity dispersion increases with scale for γp < 1,
which is consistent with observations of molecular clouds (Maloney, 1988). [Be-
cause n = 1/(γp − 1) is negative in this case, such polytropes are often referred
to as “negative-index polytropes.”] The stability of a polytrope depends on both
γp and on its adiabatic index γ, which describes the change in the pressure asso-
ciated with a given perturbation in density, δ ln P = γδ ln ρ. The value γ = 34 is
critical for spherical clouds: clouds with γ > 43 are gravitationally stable for arbi-
trarily large masses, whereas those with γ < 34 are unstable for sufficiently large
masses, or, at fixed mass, for sufficiently high ambient pressures. Correspond-
ingly, the gravitational mass MG is independent of density for γ = 34 . Polytropes
with γp < 65 must be confined by an ambient pressure (Chandrasekhar, 1939),
and their properties are determined by the pressure of the ambient medium.
McKee & Holliman (1999) show that polytropes with 0 < γp ≤ 1 have masses
≤ 1.182MG (ρ0 ); the mean density and pressure of these polytropes are < 3.8
times the surface values.
As discussed in §2.1.5, turbulent regions exhibit a line width–size relation in
which the velocity dispersion averaged over a volume increases systematically
with size scale, σnt ∝ r q . Observations often show q ≃ 1/2, the value expected
for Burgers turbulence (see §2.1.1). In general, this line width–size relation re-
flects the statistical increase in velocity differences with separation between two
points, rather than the absolute increase in the local turbulent velocity amplitude
with distance from a common center. If the medium is gravitationally stratified,
however, the central point has a physical significance, and it is not currently
known whether in this situation q varies significantly (locally or globally) from
its value in a non-stratified medium. Observations of individual low-mass cores
indicate increasing linewidths away from the centers, with q ≃ 21 on large scales
(Goodman et al., 1998); similar observations for star-forming clumps or high-
mass cores, which are supersonically turbulent, are not yet available. In poly-
tropic models with σnt ∝ ρ(γp −1)/2 ∝ r q , the density follows a power-law in radius,
ρ ∝ r −kρ , with kρ = 2q/(1 − γp ). In hydrostatic equilibrium, kρ = 2/(2 − γp )
must hold, so that q = (1 − γp )/(2 − γp ); the value q = 1/2 thus corresponds
to γp → 0. This has motivated the study of equations of state for turbulent gas
that include a pressure proportional to the logarithm of the density, so-called
“logatropes” (Lizano & Shu, 1989; Gehman et al., 1996). McLaughlin & Pudritz
(1996) pointed out a difficulty with previous logatropic models and developed a
variant that overcame this problem; however, their model leads to line widths
that actually decrease near the edge of the cloud (McKee & Tan, 2003). An
alternative model for clouds in which the inner regions are supported by thermal
pressure and the envelopes are supported by turbulent pressure is the “TNT”
18 McKee & Ostriker
(thermal/nonthermal) model, in which the density is assumed to be given by

the sum of two power laws, one with kρ = 2, representing a singular isothermal
sphere, and one with kρ < 2, representing a turbulent envelope (Myers & Fuller,
1992; Caselli & Myers, 1995). A more rigorous formulation of this type of model
is that of a composite polytrope, in which the core and envelope of the cloud
have different values of γp (Curry & McKee, 2000).
Cosmological simulations show that self-gravitating, pressureless matter con-
denses into filamentary structures (e.g., Springel et al., 2005). This reflects the
nature of evolution of cold, triaxial mass distributions under self-gravity (Lin,
Mestel, & Shu, 1965): the first collapse is along the shortest axis, and the second
collapse is along the (original) intermediate axis, resulting in a filament aligned
along the (original) long axis. Molecular clouds often exhibit filamentary struc-
ture as well (Schneider & Elmegreen, 1979; Mizuno et al., 1995; Nagahama et al.,
1998; Lada, Alves, & Lada, 1999). This may reflect the effects of self-gravitational
evolution, similar to cosmic structure formation. However, it may also reflect the
effects of strongly supersonic turbulence. Converging turbulent flows produce
curved sheets of shocked gas at stagnation surfaces, and the loci of these sheet
intersections are filaments. The morphology of cold, diffuse HI is similar to that
in GMCs (e.g. Heiles & Troland 2003; McClure-Griffiths et al. 2006), suggesting
that at least some of the filamentary structure in star-forming clouds originates
with multi-scale supersonic turbulence; the filaments that are created by turbu-
lent flows may also be (or become) self-gravitating.
Virial balance in filamentary clouds implies GM/ℓ = Gmℓ ∼ σ 2 , where ℓ is a
length along the filament and mℓ is the mass per unit length. Fiege & Pudritz
(2000) have shown that the virial gravity term for a cylindrical cloud with an
arbitrary density profile is Wℓ = −Gm2ℓ , which, in contrast to the spherical case, is
unchanged by radial compression. They also showed that the critical mass/length
is mℓ, cr = 2σ 2 /G. Filaments with γ = γp ≥ 1 are stable against compression,
since the ratio of kinetic energy to gravitational energy does not decrease during
compression. Isothermal filaments have a density ρ = ρc /[1 + (r/r0 )2 ]2 , where
r0 = (2/π)1/2 RG (ρc ) (Ostriker, 1964; the properties of filaments with γp ≥ 1
are not strongly affected by the ambient medium for r ≫ r0 , which is why
their properties are determined by the central density ρc .) However, observed
filaments often have ρ ∝ 1/r 2 rather than 1/r 4 (Lada, Alves, & Lada, 1999). Fiege
& Pudritz (2000) have shown that isothermal filaments with helical magnetic
fields of the right magnitude can give rise to such a density profile; alternatively,
Nakamura & Umemura (2002) have shown that negative index polytropes with
γp slightly less than unity have ρ ∝ 1/r 2 .
In general, masses in excess of the critical mass are subject to fragmentation.
In an isothermal, uniform medium, the minimum wavelength for gravitational
fragmentation is the Jeans length,
2 1/2
πσth
λJ = = π 1/2 RG (ρ0 ). (20)
Gρ0
The corresponding Jeans mass is MJ ≡ (4π/3)(λJ /2)3 ρ = 2.47MBE , where we

have adopted the definition of Binney & Tremaine (1987) (the Jeans mass is
elsewhere often defined as ρλ3J = 6MJ /π, which is even larger than the Bonnor-
Ebert mass). For slabs and filaments, there is a fastest growing mode, which
will determine the spacing of fragments. For an isothermal slab with surface
density Σ and with ρc ≫ ρ0 , it is λmax, slab ≈ 23/2 λJ (ρc ) = 4σth 2 /(GΣ), where
the Jeans length is defined in terms of the midplane density ρc . An isothermal

filament with ρc ≫ ρ0 has mℓ ≃ mℓ, cr and λmax, fil ≈ 1.25 × 23/2 λJ (ρc ) (Larson,
1985). These estimates assume that the gas is optically thin; if it becomes opaque,
fragmentation stops. Low & Lynden-Bell (1976) show that fragmentation ceases
for masses . 0.004 M⊙ (including He—see Whitworth et al. 2007), and that this
is relatively insensitive to parameters.
For a thin, rotating disk, rotation stabilizes self-gravitational contraction for
wavelengths greater than the Toomre length λT ≡ 4π 2 GΣ/κ2 , where κ is the
epicyclic frequency (Toomre, 1964). In order for a rotating gas disk to fragment,
the maximum instability scale imposed by angular momentum considerations
must exceed the minimum length for fragmentation set by thermal pressure. The
Toomre parameter Q ≡ κσth /(πGΣ) = (λmax, slab /λT )1/2 , and must be . 0.7 − 1
for gravitational fragmentation in an isothermal rotating disk, depending on the
strength of magnetic fields (Goldreich & Lynden-Bell, 1965; Kim, Ostriker, &
Stone, 2002). Allowing for turbulence and for the additional gravity of a stellar
disk (for large-scale galactic instabilities), the critical Q is larger (see §3.2.1). Real
gases are not strictly isothermal; Gammie (2001) has shown that in a Keplerian
disk, the cooling time tcool and angular velocity Ω = κ must satisfy the condition
tcool . 3Ω−1 for gravitational runaway to occur (the coefficient 3 is based on
2D simulations with γeff = 2, allowing for dimensional reduction; Rice, Lodato,
& Armitage (2005) showed that this coefficient can change by a factor of a few
depending on the adopted γ). Nonlinear instability develops when Q is small even
for adiabatic disks, but gravitational collapse of the condensations that form is
ultimately halted if γ is sufficiently large (Kim & Ostriker, 2001).
2.3 Magnetic Fields

The interstellar medium is strongly magnetized, whereas stars are weakly magne-
tized. How the mass-to-flux ratio increases so dramatically during star formation
is one of the classic problems of star formation (Mestel & Spitzer, 1956). We
shall characterize this ratio by the ratio of the mass to the magnetic critical
mass for poloidal fields, µΦ ≡ M/MΦ (eq. 16, §2.2). Heiles & Troland (2005)
found that the median field in the cold H I phase of the ISM (the CNM) is
|B0 | = 6.0 ± 1.8 µG, and that the CNM is organized into sheets with column
densities 2.6 × 1018 cm−2 ∼ < N <
H ∼ 2.6 × 10
20 cm−2 ; the maximum column pre-
sumably reflects the transition to molecular hydrogen. It follows that the CNM
is magnetically very subcritical, µΦ < 0.16 (throughout this section, we evaluate
MΦ with cΦ = 1/2π, the value appropriate for sheets). There are thus two parts
to the magnetic flux problem: How does the mass-to-flux ratio increase to µΦ & 2
so that gravitational collapse can readily occur, and then how does it increase to
the very large values (∼ 105−8 ) characteristic of stars?
Astronomers have two primary methods to measure the strength of magnetic
fields in the dense ISM: the Zeeman effect, which measures the line-of-sight com-
ponent, Blos ; and the Chandrasekhar-Fermi method (Chandrasekhar & Fermi,
1953a), which measures the component of the field in the plane of the sky, Bpos ,
by comparing the fluctuations in the direction of Bpos with those in the veloc-
ity field (see the reviews by Crutcher, 2005 and Heiles & Crutcher, 2005; note
that in the diffuse ISM, magnetic field strengths are also obtained by Faraday
rotation and synchrotron observations, with results consistent with Zeeman ob-
20 McKee & Ostriker
servations.) The morphology of the field, which is needed for the Chandrasekhar-
Fermi method, can be measured from dust polarization and from linear polar-
ization of spectral lines (Goldreich & Kylafis, 1981). The largest compilation
of magnetic field strengths in molecular clouds remains that of Crutcher (1999),
although it must be noted that the median temperature of the regions with de-
tected fields is 40 K, significantly greater than average. Inferring the intrinsic
field strength and column density from measurements of the line-of-sight com-
ponents is somewhat subtle (Heiles & Troland, 2005); in particular, care must
be exercised in evaluating the average value of Bk /B using logarithmic values,
since hlog Bk /Bi < loghBk /Bi. However, it is straightforward to infer the median
values: Bmed = 2Blos, med and, for sheets, Nmed = Nlos, med /2. Most of the struc-
tures Crutcher (1999) studied are relatively dense cores, so it is plausible that
they are not sheet-like; in that case, the median value of µΦ is 1.65 ± 0.2 (Heiles
& Crutcher, 2005; note that the values in Crutcher 1999 are based on cΦ = 0.12,
whereas we are using cΦ = 1/2π), the cores are supercritical and the magnetic
field is unable to significantly impede gravitational collapse. On the other hand,
if the objects in his sample are in fact sheet-like, then the median value of µΦ
is reduced to 0.8, and the typical core is about critical. However, it should be
noted that none of the cores have observed line-of-sight fields strong enough to
ensure that they are subcritical, and for many cases only upper limits on the
magnetic field strength are obtained. Subsequent OH Zeeman observations by
Bourke et al. (2001) have strengthened these conclusions, although these authors
suggest that observations with higher spatial resolution are needed to determine
whether the relatively low fields they infer (mostly upper limits) are in part due
to variations in the field structure within the telescope beam.
Crutcher (1999) also reached a number of other conclusions on the role of
magnetic fields in cores and clumps within molecular clouds from his sample:
the observed structures are in approximate virial equilibrium; the kinetic and
magnetic energies are in approximate equipartition, as expected theoretically
(Zweibel & McKee, 1995); correspondingly, the Alfvén Mach √ number is MA ≃ 1;
the observed motions are highly supersonic, with Ms ≡ 3σnt /cs ≃ 5; and, to
within the errors, B ∝ ρ1/2 , which corresponds to a constant Alfvén velocity (for
sources with measured fields, as opposed to upper limits, the average value is
vA ≃ 2 km s−1 , as found previously by Heiles et al., 1993). Basu (2000) showed
that the dispersion of the Alfvén Mach number is significantly less than that in
the Alfvén velocity in this sample. He argued that a constant value of MA is
to be expected if the clouds are strongly bound, so that the surface pressure is
negligible, and if µΦ is about constant. Adopting a median value MA = 1.0 from
Crutcher (1999) gives a median value for the magnetic field of
nH 1/2 σ
nt

Bmed ≃ 30 µG (nH & 2 × 103 cm−3 ). (21)
103 cm−3 1 km s−1
The value of the density in this relation is NH /(4R/3), where R is the mean
projected radius. Projection effects could cause the actual density to differ from
this, but the change is not large for triaxial clouds of the type considered by Basu
(2000).
As yet, observations of the mass-to-flux ratio on large scales, up to that of
GMCs, are not available. The definition of µΦ implies
G1/2 Σ

NH, 21 AV
B̄ = = 3.80 µG = 7.60 µG, (22)
µΦ cΦ µΦ δgr µΦ
where the numerical evaluations are based on cΦ = 1/2π, the visual extinction is
AV = NH δgr /(2 × 1021 cm−2 ), and δgr is the dust-to-gas ratio normalized to the
local interstellar value. Typical Galactic GMCs have NH = 1.5 × 1022 cm−2 (see
§3.1), corresponding to critical magnetic field strength (i.e., such that µΦ = 1) of
Bcr = 57 µG for the large-scale mean field. In regions with densities nH ≈ 2 ×
103 cm−3 , the lowest for which molecular-line Zeeman observations are available,
Crutcher (1999) reports line-of-sight magnetic field strengths of ≤ 21µG. Allowing
for an increase of up to a factor of two for projection effects, and for the fact that
the mean magnetic field strength will not increase as the density is reduced by a
factor of ∼ 10 to reach the volume-averaged value in GMCs, we infer that GMCs
are supercritical. GMC magnetic fields are not too weak, however: 450 µm
polarimetry of four GMCs shows that the orientation of the field appears to be
preserved during the formation of the GMCs and that the energy in the field is
comparable to the turbulent energy (Li et al., 2006).
Theoretical arguments are consistent with the empirical evidence that GMCs
as well as their sub-parts are supercritical with respect to their mean magnetic
fields. Models of self-gravitating, isothermal, magnetized clouds show that large
pressure contrasts between the center of the cloud and the edge occur only when
the cloud is near its critical mass; furthermore, if the kinetic energy is comparable
to the magnetic energy, then large pressure contrasts occur only for M > MΦ . Ex-
tending the earlier work of Mouschovias (1976), Tomisaka, Ikeuchi, & Nakamura
(1988) found that for the cases they considered with 8πP/B 2 = 1, the central
pressure significantly exceeds the surface pressure only when M is quite close to
Mcr , and that in these cases the cloud is magnetically supercritical, M > MΦ .
Using this work, McKee (1989) showed that the critical mass is Mcr ≃ MΦ + MBE
for quiescent clouds; he assumed that this relation applies to turbulent clouds as
well, with σth replaced by the total velocity dispersion σ, but the validity of this
assumption remains to be demonstrated. Since, on large scales, the turbulent
magnetic energy is likely comparable to or larger than the mean magnetic en-
ergy, and the kinetic energy is at least as large as the magnetic energy (and much
greater than the thermal energy), then clouds with αvir ∼ 1 have M & 2MΦ .
Nakano (1998) has given a similar, more precise argument that the smaller-scale
and less-turbulent cores that form stars are also magnetically supercritical. In
both cases, the basic argument is that if gravity is strong enough to overcome
both kinetic energy (turbulent plus thermal) and magnetic fields (turbulent and
ordered) in order to form a bound object, then it is certainly strong compared
to the support from mean magnetic fields alone. Note that this argument does
not apply to objects that are not bound, but instead are the result of colliding
flows (§3.2.1). It is of great importance to determine observationally the relative
importance of magnetic fields and gravity in the large scale structure of molecular
clouds.
Most detailed modeling of magnetic fields in non-turbulent clouds is based on
the assumption that the field is poloidal (e.g., Mouschovias, 1987); such fields
always tend to support clouds against gravity. On the other hand, the toroidal
component of a helical field exerts a confining force, and can lead to prolate
clouds (Tomisaka, 1991; Fiege & Pudritz, 2000). From a virial analysis of several
filamentary clouds, Fiege & Pudritz (2000) find that the self-gravity and the
pressure of the ambient medium are inadequate to account for the high mean
pressures that are observed in the clouds; they conclude that the data can be
explained if these clouds are confined by helical fields. The principal uncertainty
22 McKee & Ostriker
in this analysis is that in most cases there is no direct measurement of the ambient
pressure.
There are two mechanisms for increasing the mass-to-flux ratio, flows along
magnetic fields and ambipolar diffusion. In the part of a bound molecular cloud
that is shielded from the interstellar radiation field so that the ionization is due
to cosmic rays, the ambipolar diffusion time is about 10 times the free-fall time in
the absence of turbulence (Mouschovias, 1987) and several times faster than this
in the presence of turbulence (Zweibel, 2002; Fatuzzo & Adams, 2002; Nakamura
& Li, 2005). However, most of the mass of a GMC is ionized primarily by FUV
radiation from stars (McKee, 1989), and in this gas the ambipolar diffusion time
is much longer. GMCs are very porous, and as a result an even larger fraction
of the volume of the cloud is likely to be ionized above the level set by cosmic
rays. It follows that flux-freezing is a good approximation on large scales in
molecular clouds. Mestel (1985) introduced the concept of the “accumulation
length,” L0 , the size of the region required to achieve a given mass-to-flux ratio
when flux-freezing applies, µΦ = M/MΦ ∝ n0 L0 /B0 . In our notation this yields

cΦ B0 µΦ B0, −6
L0 = µΦ = 85 pc, (23)
µH G1/2 n0 n0
where B0, −6 ≡ B0 /(1 µG). Using n0 ∼ 1 cm−3 for the mean density in the
diffuse ISM (since GMC columns are much greater than those of individual CNM
clouds) and B0, −6 ∼ 6 for the mean field in the solar vicinity (since the mean
field should be similar to the CNM field—Piontek & Ostriker, 2005) gives a large
value for this length, ∼ 1 kpc if GMCs have µΦ ∼ 2. In fact, as we shall discuss in
§3.2.1, GMC formation from large-scale self-gravitating galactic disk instabilities
indeed involves very large accumulation lengths, and yields supercritical clouds.
As discussed above, current observations do not determine whether ambipo-
lar diffusion is necessary for the initiation of gravitational collapse. Theoreti-
cal simulations suggest that in the absence of ambipolar diffusion, star forma-
tion is strongly suppressed in magnetically subcritical regions, even if µΦ is only
slightly less than unity (Krasnopolsky & Gammie, 2005). However, similar sim-
ulations show that magnetic fields have a relatively small effect in slowing the
rate of star formation if the gas is supercritical (Ostriker, Gammie, & Stone,
1999; Heitsch, Mac Low, & Klessen, 2001; Li et al., 2004; Vázquez-Semadeni et
al., 2005; Vázquez-Semadeni, Kim, & Ballesteros-Paredes, 2005; Nakamura & Li,
2005). The primary effect of magnetic fields may be to shift the initial collapse to
higher masses. Simulations with ambipolar diffusion in weakly ionized plasmas
are very challenging. In the strong-coupling approximation, in which the ions
are not treated as a separate fluid but the field diffuses relative to the flow, ex-
plicit MHD codes have time steps ∝ ∆x2 , which is prohibitive at high resolution
(Mac Low et al., 1995). If the ions are treated as a separate fluid, explicit codes
must resolve Alfvén waves in the ions as well as Alfvén waves in the coupled
ion-neutral fluid. For ionizations . 10−6 , the Alfvén velocity in the ions can
exceed 103 km s−1 , leading to very small time steps. A potential way around
this problem is to increase the ion mass and decrease the ion-neutral coupling
constant so that the momentum exchange rate between the ions and neutrals is
unchanged (Oishi & Mac Low, 2006; Li, McKee, & Klein, 2006).
One regime in which ambipolar diffusion (or the lack of it) could have a strong
effect on the star formation rate is in the outer layers of GMCs, which are domi-
nated by FUV ionization. As remarked above, these regions constitute the bulk
of the mass of a GMC, as much as ∼ 90%. FUV photoionization slows ambipolar

diffusion, and therefore star formation, when it dominates cosmic-ray ionization,
which occurs for visual extinctions AV . 4 mag from the surface or ∼ 8 mag along
a line of sight through the cloud (McKee, 1989). Suppression of star formation
in the outer layers of GMCs has been confirmed in the L1630 region of Orion
(Li, Evans, & Lada, 1997) and in Taurus (Onishi et al., 1998). To the extent
that ambipolar diffusion is essential for forming molecular cores, the absence or
near absence of sub-mm cores in the outer layers of Ophiuchus (Johnstone, Di
Francesco, & Kirk, 2004) and Perseus (Enoch et al., 2006; Hatchell et al., 2005) is
qualitatively consistent with this prediction. On the other hand, Strom, Strom,
& Merrill (1993) find that there is a substantial distributed population of young
stars in L1641, although this population is relatively old (5 − 7) Myr.
2.3.1 Ionization The chemistry of molecular clouds is a full subject in its
own right. Here we summarize several developments that affect the ionization,
which governs the coupling between the gas and the magnetic field. (1) Photodis-
sociation regions (PDRs) are regions of the ISM that are predominantly neutral
and in which the chemistry and heating are predominantly due to far-UV radi-
ation (see the review by Hollenbach & Tielens, 1999). Most of the non-stellar
infrared radiation and most of the millimeter and submillimeter CO emission in
galaxies originates in PDRs. In the typical interstellar radiation field, photoion-
ization dominates ionization by cosmic rays for extinctions AV < 4 mag, which
includes most of the molecular gas in the Galaxy (McKee, 1989). (2) Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which contain a few percent of the carbon atoms,
often dominate the mid-IR spectrum of star-forming regions and galaxies. It is
frequently assumed that PAHs have a low abundance in molecular clouds due to
accretion onto dust grains; if this is not the case, they can dominate the ioniza-
tion balance, since electrons react with them very rapidly (Lepp et al., 1988). (3)
H+3 is a critical ion in initiating ion-molecule reactions in molecular clouds. For
many years, the rate of dissociative recombination, H+ 3 + e → H2 +H or H+H+H,
was uncertain, but careful laboratory experiments have shown that the rate co-
efficient for this reaction is large: a fit to the results of McCall et al. (2003) gives
αd (H+ −7
3 ) = 4.0 × 10 (T /10 K)
−0.52 cm3 s−1 . In order to maintain the observed
abundance of H+ 3 in the face of this high recombination rate, these authors in-
ferred a very high cosmic-ray ionization rate, ζCR = 6×10−16 s−1 per H atom (in-
cluding secondary ionizations), in a diffuse molecular cloud along the line of sight
to ζ Per. Models involving two gas phases give somewhat lower values of ζCR (e.g.,
Dalgarno, 2006), but the correct value is now quite uncertain. In dense clouds,
Dalgarno (2006) concludes that the ionization rate is ζCR ≃ 2.5 − 5 × 10−17 s−1 .
(4) Recent observations have established that carbon-bearing molecules freeze
out onto dust grains at high densities (nH ∼ 105 cm−3 ) in low-mass cores, with
nitrogen-bearing molecules freezing out at higher densities (di Francesco et al.,
2007). This affects the ionization, since it removes abundant ions such as HCO+
from the gas.
Although the chemistry determining the ionization in molecular clouds is com-
plex, simple analytic estimates are possible. In the outer layers of PDRs, carbon
is photoionized so that ne ≃ n(C). In regions ionized by cosmic rays, the degree
of ionization is given by
ζCR 1/2

ne
xe ≡ ≃ (24)
nH αnH
24 McKee & Ostriker
if the ionization is dominated by molecular ions (including PAHs), where α is

the relevant recombination rate in the chemistry that determines the ionization
fraction. If PAHs are depleted, then α ≃ 10−6 cm3 s−1 is the dissociative re-
combination rate for heavy molecules provided the density is high enough that
H+3 is destroyed primarily by reactions with such molecules; for lower densi-
ties, where the ionization is dominated by H+ +
3 , one has α = αd (H3 ). If PAHs
are sufficiently abundant that most of the electrons are attached to PAHs, then
α ≃ 3 × 10−7 cm3 s−1 (Tielens, 2005) and ne in equation (24) includes the elec-
trons attached to PAHs. Metal ions can be readily included in the analytic theory
(McKee, 1989), but they do not appear to be important in dense cores (Maret,
Bergin, & Lada, 2006). Equation (24) is consistent with the results of Padoan
et al. (2004) at late times and at high densities for α ≃ αd (HCO+ ), which they
took to be 2.5 × 10−6 cm3 s−1 .
3 MACROPHYSICS OF STAR FORMATION
3.1 Physical State of GMCs, Clumps, and Cores

The molecular gas out of which stars form is found in molecular clouds, which
occupy a small fraction of the volume of the ISM but, inside the solar circle,
comprise a significant fraction of the mass. The terminology for the structure of
molecular clouds is not fixed; here we follow the discussion in Williams, Blitz, &
McKee (2000). Giant molecular clouds (GMCs) have masses in excess of 104 M⊙
and contain most of the molecular mass. Molecular clouds have a hierarchical
structure that extends from the scale of the cloud down to the thermal Jeans
mass in the case of gravitationally bound clouds, and down to much smaller
masses for unbound structures (Langer et al., 1995; Heithausen et al., 1998).
Overdense regions (at a range of scales) within GMCs are termed clumps. Star-
forming clumps are the massive clumps out of which stellar clusters form, and
they are generally gravitationally bound. Cores are the regions out of which
individual stars (or small multiple systems like binaries) form, and are necessarily
gravitationally bound. As remarked above, this terminology is not universal;
e.g., Ward-Thompson et al. (2007) use “pre-stellar core” to refer to a core, and
“cluster-forming core” to refer to a star-forming clump.
A molecular cloud is surrounded by a layer of atomic gas that shields the
molecules from the interstellar UV radiation field; in the solar vicinity, this layer
is observed to have a column density NH ≃ 2 × 1020 cm−2 , corresponding to
a visual extinction AV = 0.1 mag (Bohlin, Savage, & Drake, 1978). A larger
column density, NH ≃ 1.4 × 1021 cm−2 , is required for CO to form (van Dishoeck
& Black, 1988). The layer of gas in which the hydrogen is molecular but the
carbon is atomic is difficult to observe, and has been termed “dark gas” (Grenier,
Casandjian, & Terrier, 2005).
The mass of a molecular cloud is generally inferred from its luminosity in the
J = 1 − 0 line of 12 CO or 13 CO. Because 12 CO is optically thick, estimating
the column density of H2 molecules from the 12 CO line intensity ICO (in units
of K km s−1 ) requires multiplication by an “X-factor,” an appropriate name
since it is not well understood theoretically; this is defined as X ≡ N (H2 )/ICO .
Various methods have been used to infer the value of X in the Galaxy. In one
method, observations of γ-rays emitted by cosmic rays interacting with the ISM
give the total amount of interstellar matter; the mass of molecular gas follows by
subtracting the neutral atomic hydrogen (H I) contribution. With this technique,

Strong & Mattox (1996) infer X = 1.9 × 1020 cm−2 (K km s−1 )−1 . In another
method, subtracting the H I-associated dust emission from the total observed dust
emission in the infrared gives a local value X = 1.8 × 1020 cm−2 (K km s−1 )−1
(Dame, Hartmann, & Thaddeus, 2001). Note that both of these methods account
for all the molecular hydrogen gas, including the “dark gas.” Allowing for the
atomic shielding layer around a molecular cloud (but not the “dark-gas” layer),
Elmegreen (1989) predicted X ∝ (G0 /Z)3/8 /Tb , where G0 is proportional to the
intensity of FUV radiation that can photodissociate H2 , Z is the metallicity, and
Tb is the brightness temperature of the line. Maloney & Black (1988) concluded
that Tb should be substantially reduced in regions of low metallicity. Observing
the 13 CO line is advantageous in that it is optically thin in all but the high-
density cores. Conversion from 13 CO intensity to column density involves an
assumption of LTE (using temperatures derived from 12 CO), and a fixed H2 to
13 CO abundance. Because 13 CO may be subthermally excited in diffuse regions,
however, column densities there will be underestimated. Near-infrared extinction

mapping (Lada, Alves, & Lombardi, 2007) offers the prospect of obtaining more
accurate masses, at least for nearby molecular clouds.
The observed mass distribution of GMCs is a power law with a relatively
sharp cutoff. Let dNc (M ) be the number of GMCs with masses in the range M
to M + dM . Observations of GMCs inside the solar circle (but excluding the
Galactic Center) are consistent with the mass distribution of the form (Williams
& McKee, 1997)
Mu α

dNc
= Ncu (M ≤ Mu ), (25)
d ln M M
with no GMCs above Mu . Here Ncu /α is equal to the number of clouds elimi-
nated from the distribution by the cutoff at Mu . With Ncu = 63, α = 0.6, and
Mu = 6 × 106 M⊙ , this cloud mass distribution accounts for all the molecular
mass observed inside the solar circle excluding the Galactic Center. An indepen-
dent analysis by Rosolowsky (2005) finds a similar slope (α = 0.5 ± 0.1), but a
somewhat smaller maximum mass (Mu = 3 × 106 M⊙ , although this does not
include the several most massive clouds). These results are necessarily approx-
imate due to the difficulties in identifying clouds from position-velocity data in
the inner Galaxy—in particular, blending of clouds along the line of sight is likely
to make the true value of the slope steeper (Rosolowsky, 2005). However, the
main implications are likely to be robust. First, most of the mass in GMCs is in
large clouds—a significant fraction is in clouds with M > 106 M⊙ , and > 80%
is in clouds with M > 105 M⊙ (see also Stark & Lee, 2006). And second, since
Ncu ≫ 1, the upper limit of the mass distribution, Mu , has a physical signifi-
cance (McKee & Williams, 1997). If there were no cutoff to the distribution, one
would expect about 100 GMCs more massive than 6 × 106 M⊙ in the Galaxy,
whereas there are none. This upper mass limit may be set by the processes
that form GMCs out of diffuse gas (see §3.2.1). It should be noted that the
GMCs are embedded in more massive HI “superclouds” (sometimes encompass-
ing multiple GMCs), which also appear to be gravitationally bound (Elmegreen
& Elmegreen, 1987). In other Local Group galaxies, GMC mass distributions
have similar power laws to that in the Milky Way, with the exception of M33,
which has dNc /d ln M ∝ M −1.5 (Blitz et al., 2007). In more distant galaxies,
giant molecular associations (GMAs) with masses up to ∼ 107 M⊙ have been
26 McKee & Ostriker
observed (Vogel, Kulkarni, & Scoville, 1988; Sakamoto et al., 1999).

3.1.1 Dynamics of GMCs In a seminal paper, Larson (1981) summarized
some of the key dynamical features of GMCs in what are often referred to as
“Larson’s laws.” The first result is that GMCs obey a line width–size relation:
GMCs are supersonically turbulent with velocity dispersions that increase as a
power of the size. For GMCs in the first Galactic quadrant, almost all of which
are inside the solar circle, Solomon et al. (1987) found
0.5±0.05
σ = (0.72 ± 0.07)Rpc km s−1 , (26)
where Rpc ≡ R/(1 pc). (Note that this value for σpc is based on a distance
to the Galactic Center of 10 kpc; we have not adjusted this value for a more
accurate distance since the change is within the errors.) Heyer & Brunt (2004)
find that this cloud-to-cloud relation extends to the structure functions within
individual GMCs as well (see eq. 6 in §2.1.5), and argue that this demonstrates
the universality of the turbulence in moderate-density gas in molecular clouds
(see below).
Larson’s second law is that GMCs are gravitationally bound (αvir ≃ 1; see
eq. 11). (It should be noted that while molecular gas is generally bound in
the Galaxy, different physical conditions can lead to substantial amounts of un-
bound molecular gas or bound atomic gas—Elmegreen, 1993b.) Solomon et al.
(1987) determined the masses of clouds in their sample using the virial theorem
with αvir = 1.1, and then determined the X-factor. Including He and adjusting
the distance to the Galactic Center to 8.5 kpc from 10 kpc, their value of the
X-factor corresponding to a typical GMC with a mass of 106 M⊙ (see above) is
1.9×1020 cm−2 (K km s−1 )−1 , the same as the value determined from γ-ray obser-
vations; hence, the GMCs in their sample are gravitationally bound on average.
(Note that this argument is approximate since the γ-ray value for the X-factor
includes the “dark gas,” whereas the value from the virial theorem includes only
part of this gas, depending on the morphology of the GMC.) Observations of
13 CO, which is optically thin, permit a direct measurement of the mass, provided
the abundance is known. Such observations of a sample of GMCs in the outer

Galaxy, where blending of different clouds along the line of sight is negligible,
confirm that molecular clouds with M & 104 M⊙ (i.e., GMCs) are bound (Heyer,
Carpenter, & Snell, 2001). Lower mass clouds become progressively less bound
(see also Maloney, 1990), and unbound molecular clouds are for many purposes
equivalent to non-self-gravitating clumps within larger GMCs. Based on observa-
tions in 13 CO and other species that are believed to be optically thin, clump mass
functions within GMCs follow dN /d ln M ∝ M −αclump with αclump = 0.3 − 0.7
(Blitz, 1993; Williams, de Geus, & Blitz, 1994). The slope of the clump mass
function is similar to that for GMCs as a whole (see eq. 25), possibly because
both are determined by turbulent processes within larger, gravitationally-bound
systems.
Larson’s third law is that GMCs all have similar column densities. For the
Solomon et al. (1987) sample, the mean column density is N̄H = (1.5 ± 0.3) ×
1022 Rpc
0.0±0.1 cm−2 ; this corresponds to an extinction A
V = 7.5 mag with the
local dust-to-gas ratio. The corresponding mean surface density of GMCs is
Σ̄ = 170 M⊙ pc−2 . However, GMCs in the outer Galaxy are observed to have
smaller column densities (Heyer, Carpenter, & Snell, 2001), in part because of
the greater sensitivity of these observations.
As Larson pointed out, these three relations are not independent; any two
of them imply the third. Indeed, if we express the line width—size relation as
1/2
σ ≡ σpc Rpc , then
2 2 100 M pc−2
σpc
σ
5 pc ⊙
αvir = = 3.7 (27)
π pc GΣ 1 km s−1 Σ
relates the three scaling laws. Observations supporting a “universal turbulence
law” (eq. 6) in the Galaxy, and thus small differences in σpc between inner- and
outer- Galaxy GMCs (Heyer & Brunt, 2004; Heyer, Williams, & Brunt, 2006),
then imply that the value of Σ is about the same for all GMCs with αvir ∼ 1,
regardless of Galactic location. Observational confirmation of this conclusion
would be valuable. Provided Larson’s Laws apply, the mean kinetic pressure
within GMCs is independent of mass and size, and is given by P̄kin = ρ̄σ 2 =
2 /(4 pc). For inner-Galaxy GMCs, this is P̄ 5 −3
3Σσpc kin /kB ≈ 3 × 10 K cm .
These results can also be expressed in terms of the sonic length ℓs (see §2.1.3),
since σpc = cs (2/3ℓs, pc )1/2 if σ ≈ σnt ≫ cs , and ℓ = 2R. Gravitationally bound
objects (αvir ∼ 1) that obey a line width–size relation with an exponent ≃ 1/2
necessarily have surface densities Σ = (10/3παvir )c2s /(Gℓs ) ∼ c2s /(Gℓs ). The
small observed variation in Σ for the set of inner-Galaxy GMCs is then equiva-
lent to a small variation in ℓs in those clouds (since cs is observed to be about
constant). In terms of ℓs , the mean kinetic pressure in GMCs is P̄ = Σc2s /(2ℓs ).
Do Larson’s laws apply in other galaxies? Blitz et al. (2007) summarize ob-
servations of GMCs in galaxies in the Local Group, in which the metallicity
varies over the range (0.1 − 1) solar. They find that the GMCs in most of these
galaxies would have luminous masses within a factor two of their virial masses
if X = 4 × 1020 cm−2 (K km s−1 )−1 ; alternatively, if X has the same value
as in the Galaxy, then the GMCs are only marginally bound (αvir ≃ 2). They
conclude that metallicity does not have a significant effect on X since the ratio
of the virial mass to the CO luminosity is constant in M33, despite a factor 10
variation in metallicity. (Note, however, that Elmegreen 1989 argues that X de-
pends on the ratio of the metallicity to the intensity of the FUV radiation field,
which is not addressed by these results.) Although there is insufficient dynamic
range for clear evidence of a relationship between linewidth and size based on
current observations, the data are consistent with σ ∝ R1/2 but with values of
σpc (and therefore ℓs ) that vary from galaxy to galaxy. Blitz et al. (2007) also
find that GMC surface densities have a relatively small range within any given
Local group galaxy, while varying from ∼ 50 M⊙ pc−2 for the SMC (L. Blitz,
personal communication) to > 100 M⊙ pc−2 for M33.
There are currently two main conceptual frameworks for interpreting the data
on GMC properties. One conception of GMCs is that they are dynamic, transient
entities in which the turbulence is driven by large-scale colliding gas flows that cre-
ate the cloud (e.g. Heitsch et al. 2005; Vázquez-Semadeni et al. 2006; Ballesteros-
Paredes et al. 2007). This picture naturally explains why GMCs are turbulent
(at least in the initial stages), and why the line width–size relation within clouds
has an exponent of 1/2 – simply due to the scaling properties of supersonic tur-
bulence. However, it is less obvious why αvir ∼ 1 and why Σ has a particular
value, since small-scale dense structures may form (and collapse) at stagnation
points in a high-velocity compressive flow before sufficient material has collected
to create a large-scale GMC. Indeed, based on simulations with a converging flow
28 McKee & Ostriker
of ∼ 20 km s−1 with no stellar feedback, Vázquez-Semadeni et al. (2007) find

that star formation occurs when the column density is NH ≈ 1021 cm−2 , a factor
of ten below the mean observed value for GMCs. They also find that αvir remains
near unity after self-gravity becomes important, although the kinetic energy is
primarily due to the gravitational collapse of the cloud, not to internal turbulence.
Zuckerman & Palmer (1974) argued many years ago that GMCs cannot be in a
state of global collapse without leading to an unrealistically high star formation
rate. Proponents of the transient GMC picture counter by pointing out that most
of the gas in GMCs is unbound and never forms stars (e.g., Clark et al., 2005);
the global collapse is reversed by feedback from stars that form in the fraction of
the gas that is overdense and bound. Indeed, individual star formation proceeds
more rapidly than global collapse in essentially all turbulent simulations (see also
§3.2.2). However, dominance of global collapse and expansion over large-scale
random turbulent motions has not been confirmed from observations.
In the second conceptual framework, GMCs are formed by large-scale self-
gravitating instabilities (see §3.2.1), and the turbulence they contain is due
to a combination of inheritance from the diffuse ISM, conversion of gravita-
tional energy to turbulent energy during contraction, and energy injection from
newly formed stars (§3.2.2); the balance among these terms presumably shifts
in time. In the work of Chieze (1987); Elmegreen (1989); Maloney (1988); Mc-
Kee & Holliman (1999); McKee (1999), GMCs are treated as quasi-equilibrium,
self-gravitating objects, so that the virial parameter is near-unity by definition.
Whether or not equilibrium holds, the virial parameter is initially of order unity
in scenarios involving gravitational instability because GMCs separate from the
diffuse ISM as defined structures when they become gravitationally bound. For a
quasi-equilibrium, the mean surface density is set by the pressure of the ambient
ISM (see §2.2), which in turn is just the weight of the overlying ISM. Elmegreen
(1989) has given explicit expressions for how the coefficient in the line width–size
relation and the surface density depend on the external pressure, finding results
that are comparable with observed values. In particular, the cloud surface den-
sity scales with the mean surrounding surface density of the ISM. Even if GMCs
are not equilibria, if they are formed due to self-gravitating instabilities in spiral
arms (e.g. Kim & Ostriker 2002, 2006) they must initially have surface densities
a factor of a few above the mean arm gas density, consistent with observations.
Provided that stellar feedback destroys clouds within a few (large-scale) dynami-
cal times before gravitational collapse accelerates, the mean surface density would
never greatly exceed the value at the time of formation. Simple models of cloud
evolution with stellar feedback (e.g., Krumholz, Matzner, & McKee 2006) suggest
that the scenario of slow evolution with αvir = 1 − 2 is self-consistent and yields
realistic star formation efficiencies, but more complete studies are needed.
The two approaches to interpreting GMC dynamics correspond to two alter-
nate views on GMC lifetimes. Elmegreen (2000) argued that, over a wide range
of scales, star formation
√ occurs in about 1−2 dynamical crossing times of the sys-
tem, tcross ≡ 2R/( 3σ). Ballesteros-Paredes, Hartmann, & Vázquez-Semadeni
(1999) and Hartmann, Ballesteros-Paredes, & Bergin (2001) focused on the par-
ticular case of star formation in Taurus, and argued that it occurred in about one
dynamical time. The alternate view is that GMCs are gravitationally bound and
1/4
live at least 2 − 3, and possibly more, crossing times, tcross ≃ 10M6 Myr, where
6
M6 ≡ M/(10 M⊙ ) and a virial parameter αvir ∼ 1 − 2 is assumed. (Note that
the crossing time in the nearby star-forming region in Taurus is ∼ 106 yr, whereas
in a large GMC it is ∼ 107 yr.) However, GMCs (as opposed to structures within
them) cannot be too close to being equilibria, since they do not appear to have
a systematic, global density stratification, nor does the line width–size relation
within individual clouds differ from that in unstratified clouds. (Note that lo-
gatropic clouds can account for the observed relation δv ∝ ℓ1/2 only if they are
unbound—see §2.2). Estimates (empirical and theoretical) of GMC lifetimes will
be discussed in §3.2.2. It should be borne in mind that the difference between the
two scenarios is only a factor ∼ 2 − 3 for GMC lifetimes, which makes it difficult
to obtain an unambiguous observational resolution purely based on timescales.
However, there are major physical distinctions between the limiting cases of the
scenarios that are under consideration – e.g. collapse triggered in colliding flows
vs. a quasi-steady state supported by internally-driven turbulence. As complete
numerical simulations are developed to flesh out the current proposals, it will be
possible to distinguish among them using detailed kinematic observations.
3.1.2 Clumps and Cores GMCs are highly clumped, so that a typical
molecule is in a region with a density significantly greater than average. Liszt
(1993) finds that the typical density of molecular gas in the Galactic plane is
nH ≃ 3 × 103 cm−3 ; Sanders et al. (1993) find a somewhat higher value from a
multi-transition study, nH ≃ (4 − 12) × 103 cm−3 . However, the mean density in
GMCs is considerably less: since M ∝ n̄H R3 and N̄H ∝ n̄H R,
3/2
84 N̄H
n̄H = 1/2 cm−3 , (28)
M 1.5 × 1022 cm−2
6
where we have normalized the column density to the typical value in the Solomon
et al. (1987) sample. The effective filling factor of this molecular gas is then
3/2
3000 cm−3

n̄H 0.028 N̄H
f≡ = 1/2 . (29)
nH M6 nH 1.5 × 1022 cm−2
Note that since f ≤ 1, clouds with M . 103 M⊙ must have column densities
less than the Solomon et al. (1987) value if their typical density is ∼ 3000 cm−3 .
The small filling factor of molecular gas in GMCs is expected in turbulent clouds
(§2.1.4). It should be noted that star-forming clumps are themselves clumpy, and
contain the cores that will evolve into stars.
The nature of the interclump medium is uncertain; it is not even known if it is
atomic or molecular (Williams, Blitz, & McKee, 2000). Hennebelle & Inutsuka
(2006) have suggested that the damping of hydromagnetic waves incident from
the ambient ISM could maintain an interclump medium made up of warm H I.
The physical conditions in clumps and cores have been thoroughly reviewed by
di Francesco et al. (2007) and Ward-Thompson et al. (2007), and we shall address
only a few issues here. First, how well are Larson’s laws obeyed in clumps and
cores? Most 13 CO clumps are unbound, and therefore do not obey Larson’s
laws (e.g., Carr, 1987); the mass distribution of such clumps can extend in an
unbroken power law from several tens of solar masses down to Jupiter masses
(Heithausen et al., 1998). On the other hand, Bertoldi & McKee (1992) found that
most of the mass in the clouds is concentrated in the most massive clumps, and
these appear to be gravitationally bound. The virial parameter for the unbound
clumps decreases with increasing mass, in a manner similar to that observed for
30 McKee & Ostriker
both the small molecular clouds and clumps within GMCs in the outer Galaxy
(Heyer, Carpenter, & Snell, 2001). They found that the velocity dispersion in
the unbound clumps is approximately independent of clump mass (or, since the
clump density is also about constant in each cloud, of clump size): the unbound
clumps do not obey a line width–size relation. Heyer, Carpenter, & Snell (2001)
find the same result for clumps in the outer Galaxy. By contrast, Falgarone,
Puget, & Perault (1992) found that unbound clumps do obey a line-width size
relation, albeit with considerable scatter. Bertoldi & McKee (1992) showed that
the kinetic pressure in the unbound clumps in their study is comparable to that
in the host molecular cloud, which is P ≃ GΣ2MC (eq. 12). Further evidence
on whether clumps or cores are bound is imprinted in their shapes and density
structure and is discussed below.
It is difficult to determine from the data whether there is a line width–size
relation within individual clumps and cores. For low-mass cores, Barranco &
Goodman (1998) (see also Goodman et al. 1998; Tafalla et al. 2004) found that
the nonthermal linewidth decreases and then reaches a minimum “plateau” level
at a finite impact parameter ∼ 0.1 pc from the center of the core. Because of
projection effects, however, it is not possible to determine whether the observed
turbulence pervades the whole volume interior to that radial impact parameter,
or whether the turbulence is primarily in a shell surrounding a more-quiescent
core; it is also possible that the non-thermal line width is due to coherent oscilla-
tions of the cores (Keto et al., 2006). A line width–size relation in the ensemble
of different gravitationally bound clumps and cores is expected only if they have
similar surface densities (eq. 27). Jijina, Myers, & Adams (1999) carried out
a comprehensive study of cores and star-forming clumps (in our terminology;
“dense cores” in theirs) observed in NH3 and found that the objects with and
without associated IRAS sources each obeyed a nonthermal line width–size rela-
tion with slopes of about 0.5 and 0.8, respectively. When the sample was divided
into objects associated with or without clusters (defined as having at least 30
embedded YSOs), the cluster sample had a weak correlation between line width
and size with a slope of only about 0.2, whereas the non-cluster sample had a
stronger correlation with a slope of about 0.6. However, as remarked above,
Heyer, Carpenter, & Snell (2001) found no evidence for a line width–size relation
for small (< 104 M⊙ ) molecular clouds in the outer Galaxy; furthermore, they
did not find evidence for a constant surface density at any mass. Plume et al.
(1997) observed a sample of clumps that are forming high-mass stars, and did
not find a line width–size relation.
The lack of an observed linewidth-size relation in observed unbound clumps
within a given cloud is at first puzzling, since defined volumes should sample
from the overall structure function of the GMC, which follows δv ∝ ℓ0.5 (§2.1.5).
Analysis of turbulence simulations offers a resolution to this puzzle, suggesting
that many apparent clumps in moderate-density tracers such as 13 CO are not in
fact single physical entities. Observationally, clumps are generally identified as
connected overdense peaks in position-velocity data cubes, with the line-of-sight
velocity acting as a surrogate for line-of-sight position. Analysis of simulations
shows, however, that many “position-velocity” clumps in fact consist of separate
physical structures superimposed on the sky; correspondingly, many physically-
coherent structures have two or more separate components when observed in
line-of-sight velocity (Pichardo et al., 2000; Ostriker, Stone, & Gammie, 2001;
Ballesteros-Paredes & Mac Low, 2002). Because low-contrast apparent clumps
with any plane-of-sky size may sample from the velocity field along the whole
line of sight, the linewidth varies only very weakly with size. Since a fraction of
the apparent clumps sample velocities from a range of line-of-sight distances no
larger than their transverse extent, however, Ostriker, Stone, & Gammie (2001)
argued that the lower envelope of the “clump” linewidth-size distribution should
follow the scaling defined by the true three-dimensional power spectrum; this is
generally consistent with observations (Stutzki & Guesten, 1990; Williams, de
Geus, & Blitz, 1994).
What about Larson’s third law? Since gravitationally bound clumps have
P ≃ GΣ2bd clump , and the mean pressure in a bound clump cannot be much
greater than the ambient pressure for a stable structure without an internal
energy source, it follows that typically Σbd clump is comparable to ΣGMC (Mc-
Kee, 1999). The high-mass, star-forming clumps studied by Plume et al. (1997)
violate this conclusion: they have Σ ∼ 4800 M⊙ pc−2 ≃ 1 g cm−2 with consid-
erable dispersion, which is much greater than the typical GMC surface density
∼ 170 M⊙ pc−2 . There are several possible explanations for this, and it is impor-
tant to determine which is correct: Are these clumps just the innermost, densest
parts of much larger clumps? Do they have much higher pressures than their
surroundings but are avoiding gravitational collapse due to energy injection from
star formation? Or are they the result of a clump-clump collision that produced
unusually high pressures?
The density structure, velocity structure, and shape of cores offer potential
means for determining whether they are dynamic objects, with short lifetimes,
or quasi-equilibrium, gravitationally bound, objects. The observation of the Bok
globule B68 in near-infrared absorption revealed an angle-averaged density profile
consistent with that of a Bonnor-Ebert sphere to high accuracy (Alves, Lada, &
Lada, 2001). Since then, a number of other isolated globules and cores have been
studied with the same technique and fit to Bonnor-Ebert profiles, showing that
starless cases are usually close to the critical limit, while cases with stars often
match supercritical profiles (Teixeira, Lada, & Alves, 2005; Kandori et al., 2005).
Profiles of dense cores have also been obtained using sub-mm dust emission (see
di Francesco et al. 2007). A recent study by Kirk, Ward-Thompson, & André
(2005) found that “bright” starless cores have density profiles consistent with
supercritical Bonnor-Ebert spheres.
Consistency of density profiles with the Bonnor-Ebert profile does not, however,
necessarily imply that a core is bound. Analysis of dense concentrations that
arise in turbulence simulations show that Bonnor-Ebert profiles often provide
a good fit to these structures (provided they are averaged over angles), even
when they are transients rather than true bound cores (Ballesteros-Paredes et
al., 2007). Even if a cloud with a Bonnor-Ebert profile is bound, however, it need
not be in equilibrium: Myers (2005) and Kandori et al. (2005) have shown that
density profiles of collapsing cores initiated from near-critical equilibria in fact
follow the shapes of static supercritical equilibria very closely. The reason for
this is that initially these cores collapse slowly, so that they are approximately
in equilibrium; at later times, they evolve via “outside-in” collapse to a state
that is marginally Jeans unstable everywhere (§4.1) so that ρ ∝ r −2 except in
a central core; highly supercritical Bonnor-Ebert spheres have profiles with the
same characteristic shapes. Thus, not only the density structure but also the level
of the internal velocity dispersion and detailed shape of the line profiles must be
used in order to distinguish between transient, truly equilibrium, and collapsing
32 McKee & Ostriker
objects (Keto & Field, 2005).

Core shapes also provide information on whether cores are transient or are
bound, quasi-equilibrium objects. In the absence of a magnetic field, a quasi-
equilibrium, bound cloud is approximately spherical. If the cloud is threaded by
a magnetic field that tends to support the cloud against gravity, it will be oblate;
if the field tends to compress the cloud (as is possible for some helical fields–Fiege
& Pudritz 2000), it will be prolate. If one assumes axisymmetry, the distribution
of observed axis ratios implies dense cores are primarily prolate (Ryden, 1996).
However, this conclusion appears to be an artifact of the assumption of axisym-
metry: using the method of analysis for triaxial clouds developed by Basu (2000),
Jones, Basu, & Dubinski (2001) and Jones & Basu (2002) concluded that cores
with sizes < 1 pc are in fact oblate. Basu (2000) showed that if the magnetic
field is aligned with the minor axis, as in most quasi-equilibrium models, the
projection of the field on the plane of the sky will not generally be aligned with
the projection of the minor axis, and he argued that the limited polarization
data available are consistent with the theoretical expectation that the field in the
cloud is aligned with the minor axis of the cloud. Kerton et al. (2003) showed
that larger structures, extending up to GMCs, are intermediate between oblate
and prolate, and are clearly distinct from the smaller objects. This is consistent
with the analyses of clump shapes in turbulence simulations by Gammie et al.
(2003); Li et al. (2004), who found that the majority of objects are triaxial. The
data on cores and small clumps are thus consistent with (but do not prove) that
they are bound, quasi-equilibrium objects. Large clumps and GMCs appear to
be farther from equilibrium.
A key feature of the cores that form individual low-mass stars is that they have
low nonthermal velocities, whether these cores are found in isolation or clustered
with other cores (di Francesco et al., 2007; Ward-Thompson et al., 2007). The
mean one-dimensional velocity dispersion in starless cores based on the sample of
Benson & Myers (1989) is 0.11 km s−1 , such that the three-dimensional velocity
dispersion is approximately sonic. This places constraints on theoretical models,
and in particular may constrain the nature of turbulent driving. Klessen et al.
(2005) compared the results for cores identified in two (unmagnetized) simula-
tions with the same RMS Mach number ≈ 10, one driven on large scales and the
other driven on small scales; the time correlation of the driving force is short for
both cases. They found that only with large-scale driving is the mean turbulence
level within cores approximately sonic; in the small-scale driving case the prepon-
derance of cores are supersonic. Klessen et al. (2005) also found that the starless
cores in their large-scale-driving models are within a factor of a few of kinetic
and gravitational energy equipartition. In the 2D MHD simulations of Nakamura
& Li (2005) that implement driving by instantaneous injection of radial “wind”
momentum when (low-mass) stars are formed, the dense cores that are identified
also primarily have subsonic internal motions. Importantly, both types of models
show that dense, quiescent cores can form in a turbulent environment; the slow,
diffusive formation of quiescent cores central to the older picture of star formation
does not seem to be required.
What happens to dense cores once they form? Cores that have sufficient in-
ternal turbulence compared to their self-gravity will redisperse within a crossing
time. Cores that reach low enough turbulence and magnetization levels (allow-
ing for dissipation) within a few local free-fall times will collapse if M > Mcr .
Vázquez-Semadeni et al. (2005) found that in globally supercritical 3D simula-
tions with driven turbulence, cores that collapse do so within 3–6 local free-fall
times of their formation. Nakamura & Li (2005) found via 2D simulations in-
cluding ambipolar diffusion that even when the mass in the simulation volume is
20% less than critical, supercritical cores can form; these then either collapse or
redisperse within several local free-fall times. In both cases (see also Krasnopol-
sky & Gammie 2005), only magnetically supercritical cores collapse, as expected.
Quiescent cores that are stable against gravitational collapse could in principle
survive for a long time (Lizano & Shu, 1989), undergoing oscillations in response
to fluctuations in the ambient medium (Keto & Field, 2005; Keto et al., 2006).
Because they are only lightly bound, however, such “failed cores” can also be
destroyed relatively easily by the larger-scale, more powerful turbulence in the
surrounding GMC. This process is clearly seen in numerical simulations; Vázquez-
Semadeni et al. (2005) and Nakamura & Li (2005) found that the bound cores
that subsequently disperse do so in 1 – 6 ×tff . Quiescent, magnetically subcrit-
ical cores with thermal pressure ρcore c2s exceeding the mean turbulent pressure
2 (so that the core would collapse in the absence of magnetic support) can-
ρ̄σnt
not easily be destroyed, however, and it is likely that they remain intact until
they merge with other cores to become supercritical. Simulations have not yet
afforded sufficient statistics to determine the mean time to collapse or dispersal
as a function of core properties and cloud turbulence level, or whether there is a
threshold density above which ultimate collapse is inevitable.
Observationally, core lifetimes can be estimated by using chemical clocks or
from statistical inference. The formation of complex molecules takes ∼ 105 yr at
typical core densities, but this “clock” can be reset by events that bring fresh C
and C+ into the core, such as turbulence or outflows (Langer et al., 2000). A
potentially more robust clock is provided by observations of cold H I in cores:
Goldsmith & Li (2005) infer ages of 106.5−7 yr for five dark clouds from the low
observed values of the H I /H2 ratio. These age estimates would be reduced if
clumping is significant and hence the time-averaged molecule formation rate is
accelerated, but, as in the case of complex molecules, they would be increased
if turbulent mixing were effective in bringing in fresh atomic hydrogen. In sim-
ulations of molecule formation in a turbulent (and therefore clumpy) medium,
Glover & Mac Low (2007) find that H2 formation is indeed accelerated when
compared with the non-turbulent case, although the atomic fractions they found
are substantially greater than those observed by Goldsmith & Li (2005). If con-
firmed, these ages, which are considerably greater than a free-fall time, would
suggest that these dark clouds are quasi-equilibrium structures.
Statistical studies of core lifetimes are based on comparing the number of star-
less cores with the number of cores with embedded YSOs and the number of
visible T Tauri stars. The ages of the cores (starless and with embedded YSOs)
can then be inferred from the ages of the T Tauri population, provided that
most of the observed starless cores will eventually become stars. The results
of several such studies have been summarized by Ward-Thompson et al. (2007),
who conclude that lifetimes are typically 3 − 5 tff for starless cores with densities
nH2 = 103.5 − 105.5 cm−3 . This is not consistent with dynamical collapse, nor
is it consistent with a long period (> 5tff ) of ambipolar diffusion. It is consis-
tent with the ambipolar diffusion in observed magnetic fields (§2.3), which are
approximately magnetically critical. Of course, cores are created with a range of
properties, and observational statistics are subject to an evolutionary selection
effect: cores that are born or become supercritical evolve rapidly into collapse,
34 McKee & Ostriker
and are no longer counted among the starless population. Given a population
with a range of intrinsic lifetimes (but similar birth rates), the longest-lived ob-
jects will be the best represented. The data rule out the possibility that most
cores are born very subcritical and lose their magnetic flux slowly, over ∼ 10tff .
The angular momentum of cores was initially regarded as a bottleneck for
star formation, but extensive theoretical analysis led to the conclusion that mag-
netic fields would provide an effective braking mechanism (e.g., Mestel, 1985;
Mouschovias, 1987). Observations have established that the angular momentum,
or equivalently, the rotational energy, of cores is indeed small (e.g., Goodman et
al., 1993; Jijina, Myers, & Adams, 1999; Caselli et al., 2002; Pirogov et al., 2003).
Goodman et al. (1993) characterized the rotational energy by the parameter
2
1 vrot
βrot ≡ , (30)
3 GM/R
which is the ratio of the rotational energy to the gravitational binding energy for
a uniformly rotating, constant density sphere; they found a median value βrot ≃
0.03. The specific angular momenta j in this sample range from 6×1020 −4×1022
cm2 s−1 , and increase with size approximately as j ∝ R3/2 . Interestingly enough,
Burkert & Bodenheimer (2000) showed that rotation arising from sampling tur-
bulent fluctuations with a Burgers power spectrum (and normalization matched
to observations) is adequate to account for the observations; in this picture, the
role of magnetic braking on small scales is unclear. (On the other hand, magnetic
braking appears to be clearly significant in regulating the spin of GMAs and hence
GMCs – Rosolowsky et al., 2003; Kim, Ostriker, & Stone, 2003.) Since j ∝ vR
and v ∝ R1/2 for large-scale turbulence, the observed j ∝ R3/2 relation is what
would be expected if core turbulence scales similarly. Li et al. (2004) indeed find
agreement with this scaling from cores identified in their simulations. Gammie
et al. (2003) and Jappsen et al. (2005) both find that the mean specific angular
momentum of cores in their models (using grid-based MHD and [unmagnetized]
SPH, respectively) is given in terms of the sound speed and large-scale Jeans
length by ∼ 0.1cs λJ ; Jappsen et al. (2005) show that if the mean density is
adjusted so that core masses match those in observed regions, then the mean
angular momentum distributions match as well. For cores that collapse, Jappsen
et al. (2005) also found that the distributions of βrot are similar to those obtained
by Goodman et al. (1993).
3.2 Formation, Evolution, and Destruction of GMCs

3.2.1 CLOUD FORMATION In principle, GMCs could form either by
“bottom-up” or by “top-down” processes. In bottom-up formation, successive
inelastic collisions of cold H I clouds would gradually increase the mean cloud
size and mass until that of a (self-gravitating) GMC is reached (e.g. Field &
Saslaw, 1965; Kwan, 1979). The difficulty with this coagulation scenario, as
was early recognized, is that it is very slow; e.g. Kwan (1979) found that the
time needed for the peak of the mass distribution to exceed 105 M⊙ is more
than 2 × 108 yr. The binary √ collision time for spherical clouds of radius Rcl
and density ρcl is tcollis = ( π/3)(ρcl /ρ̄)(Rcl /σ), where ρ̄ is the density averaged
over large scales and σ is the one-dimensional velocity dispersion over the mean
intercloud separation (see Binney & Tremaine 1987, eq. 8-122; note that for
considering agglomeration we neglect grazing collisions, choosing a maximum
impact parameter Rcl ). Expressed in terms of the cloud “gathering scale” Rgath ≡
[3Mcl /(4π ρ̄)]1/3 = 190 pc(Mcl,6 /n̄H )1/3 in the diffuse ISM, or in terms of the cloud
surface density Σcl ≡ Mcl /(πRcl 2 ), the collision time is
√ 2/3 √
π ρcl Rgath π Σcl
tcollis = = . (31)
3 ρ̄ σ 4 ρ̄σ
The mean intercloud separation is comparable to 2Rgath , which exceeds the
atomic disk scale height H ≈ 150 pc (Malhotra, 1995) for Mcl,6 ≡ Mcl /106 M⊙
>
∼ 0.04. We can use equation (31) to estimate the collision time if all the dif-
fuse ISM gas were apportioned into equal-mass clouds with equal surface density.
Using σ ≈ 7 km s−1 for the nonthermal velocity dispersion in the diffuse ISM
at large ( ∼> H) scales (Heiles & Troland, 2003), Σ ≈ 170 M −2 for the
cl ⊙ pc
mean GMC column (Solomon et al., 1987), and mean density n̄H = 0.6 cm−3
typical of the diffuse ISM at the Solar circle (Dickey & Lockman, 1990), this
yields a collision timescale > 5 × 108 yr. Gravitational focusing in principle de-
creases the cloud-cloud collision time, but in practice this does not help in form-
ing GMCs from atomic clouds since the reduction factor for the collision time,
[1+πGRcl Σcl /σ 2 ]−1 , is near unity until the clouds are quite massive ( ∼
> 105 M ).
⊙
Even if the background density were arbitrarily (and unrealistically) enhanced
by a factor 100 to approach ρcl , the total time of 40 Myr required to build clouds
from 104 M⊙ to 5 × 106 M⊙ (by successive stages of collisions) would still exceed
the estimated GMC lifetimes. These lifetimes are set by the time required to
destroy clouds by a combination of photodissociation and mechanical unbinding
by expanding HII regions (see §§3.2.2). Thus, if coagulation were the only way
to build GMCs, the process would be truncated by destructive star formation
before achieving the high GMC masses in which most molecular mass is actually
found.
Given the timescale problem and other difficulties of bottom-up GMC forma-
tion (e.g. Blitz & Shu, 1980), starting in the 1980’s the focus shifted to top-down
mechanisms involving large-scale instabilities in the diffuse ISM (e.g., Elmegreen,
1979, 1995). The two basic physical processes that could trigger growth of mas-
sive GMCs involve (1) differential vertical buoyancy of varying-density regions
along magnetic field lines parallel to the midplane, or (2) differential in-plane
self-gravity of regions with varying surface density. The first type of instability
is generically termed a Parker instability (Parker, 1966). The second type of
instability is generically a Jeans instability, although the simplest form of Jeans
instability involving just self-gravity and pressure cannot occur, due to galactic
(sheared) rotation (see §2.2). If the background rotational shear is strong, as
in the interarm regions of grand design spirals or in flocculent galaxies, there is
no true instability but instead a process known as swing amplification (Goldre-
ich & Lynden-Bell, 1965; Toomre, 1981); the dimensionless shear rate must be
d ln Ω/d ln R . −0.3 for “swing” to occur (Kim & Ostriker, 2001). If, on the
other hand, the mean background dimensionless shear rate is low (as in the inner
parts of galaxies where rotation is nearly solid-body, or as in spiral arms), another
type of gravitational instability can develop provided magnetic fields are present
to transfer angular momentum out of growing condensations (Elmegreen, 1987;
Kim & Ostriker, 2001); this is referred to as a magneto-Jeans instability (MJI).
The characteristic azimuthal spatial scale for Parker instabilities is λφ ≈ 4πH
(Shu, 1974). Growth rates are ∝ vA /H, which tends to increase in spiral arms;
36 McKee & Ostriker
thus these regions have traditionally been considered most favorable for growth
of Parker modes (Mouschovias, Shu, & Woodward, 1974). Numerical simulations
have shown, however, that Parker instability is not on its own able to create
structures resembling GMCs, because the instability is self-limiting and saturates
with only order-unity surface density enhancement (Kim et al., 1998; Santillán et
al., 2000; Kim, Ryu, & Jones, 2001; Kim, Ostriker, & Stone, 2002). Spiral arms
are also the most favorable regions for self-gravitating instabilities (Elmegreen,
1994), since the characteristic (thin-disk) growth rate ∝ GΣgal /cs is highest there.
(Here, Σgal is the mean gas surface density averaged over large [∼ kpc] scales in
the plane of the disk.) Since the spatial wavelengths of Parker and MJI modes
are similar, in principle growth of the former could help trigger the latter within
spiral arms (Elmegreen, 1982a,b). In fact, it appears that turbulence excited in
spiral shocks, together with vertical shear of the horizontal flow, may suppress
growth of large-scale Parker modes in arm regions (Kim & Ostriker, 2006). Thus,
while the Parker instability is important in removing excess magnetic flux from
the disk and in transporting cosmic rays (e.g. Hanasz & Lesch, 2000), it may be
of limited importance in the formation of GMCs.
Self-gravitating instabilities, unlike buoyancy instabilities, lead to ever-increasing
density contrast if other processes do not intervene. The same is true for the swing
amplifier if the (finite) growth is sufficient to precipitate gravitational runaway.
The notion that there should be a threshold for star formation depending on the
Toomre parameter,
−1
κcs cs κ Σgal
Q≡ = 1.4 , (32)
πGΣgal 7.0 km s−1 36 km s−1 kpc−1 13 M⊙ pc−2
is based on the idea that star-forming clouds can form by large-scale self-gravitating
collective effects only if Q is sufficiently low. Here, κ2 ≡ R−3 ∂(Ω2 R4 )/∂R is the
squared epicyclic frequency, and cs is the mean sound speed of the gas. Numer-
ical simulations have been used to determine the nonlinear instability criterion,
finding that gravitationally bound clouds form provided Q < Qcrit ≈ 1.5 in model
disks that allow for realistic vertical thickness, turbulent magnetic fields, and a
“live” stellar component (Kim, Ostriker, & Stone 2003; Li, Mac Low, & Klessen
2005b; Kim & Ostriker 2007; these models do not include global spiral structure
in the gas imposed by variations in the stellar gravitational potential – see below.)
These results agree with empirical findings for the mean value of Q at the star
formation threshold radii in nearby galaxies (e.g. Quirk, 1972; Kennicutt, 1989;
Martin & Kennicutt, 2001). The masses of bound clouds formed via self-gravity
in galactic disk models where the background gas surface density is relatively
uniform are typically a few to ten times the two-dimensional Jeans mass,
−1
c4s 7
cs 4 Σgal
MJ,2D ≡ 2 = 10 M⊙ , (33)
G Σgal 7 km s−1 13 M⊙ pc−2
depending on the specific ingredients of the model (Kim, Ostriker, & Stone, 2002,
2003; Kim & Ostriker, 2007).
Observations of external galaxies with prominent spiral structure show that
most of the molecular gas is concentrated in the spiral arms (e.g. Helfer et al.,
2003; Engargiola et al., 2003), and within the Milky Way the most massive clouds
that contain most of the mass and forming stars are strongly associated with
spiral arms (Solomon, Sanders, & Rivolo, 1985; Solomon & Rivolo, 1989; Heyer
& Terebey, 1998; Stark & Lee, 2006). The observed relationship between GMCs
and spiral structure suggests that molecular clouds are preferentially born in
the high density gas that makes up the arms; this is consistent with theoretical
expectations since growth rates for all proposed mechanisms increase with the
gas surface density. As noted above, collisional coagulation is expected to be too
slow in spiral arms; gravitational instabilities are, however, faster (e.g. Elmegreen,
1990). Taking the ratio of the collision rate t−1
collis to the characteristic growth rate
of the MJI, πGΣgal /cs , and setting σ = cs and H ≈ c2s /(πGΣgal ) (since gas√gravity
dominates stellar gravity in the arm), the result is tMJI /tcollis = 2Σgal /( πΣcl ).
Thus, the collision rate is lower than the self-gravity contraction rate by roughly
the surface filling factor of clouds in the arm, ∼ 0.2−0.5 if the arm surface density
is enhanced by a factor 3 – 6 above the mean value.
To obtain realistic estimates of the masses and other properties of clouds formed
via gravitational instabilities, it is necessary to include the effects of spiral struc-
ture in detailed numerical models. Diffuse gas entering a spiral arm will in general
undergo a shock, significantly increasing the background density (e.g. Roberts,
1969; Shu, Milione, & Roberts, 1973); gas self-gravity enhances the maximum
compression factor and also tends to symmetrize the gas density profile across
the arm (Lubow, Cowie, & Balbus, 1986). In addition to strong variations in the
gas surface density, spiral structure induces corresponding local variations in the
gas flow velocity (both compression and streaming). Since the Jeans length is
not small compared to the scale of these variations, the background arm “pro-
file” must be taken into account in studying growth of self-gravitating condensa-
tions (Balbus, 1988). Kim & Ostriker (2002) performed 2D MHD simulations of
this process, showing that bound condensations develop both within the spiral
arms themselves, and also downstream from the arms in trailing gaseous “spurs”.
Based on 3D local MHD simulations (Kim & Ostriker, 2006) and 2D “thick disk”
global simulations (Shetty & Ostriker, 2006), bound gas condensations formed in
spiral arms (and arm spurs) have typical masses 1 − 3 × 107 M⊙ . This value is
∼ 10× the thin-disk 2D Jeans mass using the peak arm density in equation (33),
or comparable to the value of the “thick disk” Jeans mass MJ, thick = 2πc2s H/G
which is obtained using the gravitational kernel Φk = −2πGΣk /(k + k2 H).
The masses of the bound structures formed via self-gravitating instabilities
are comparable to the upper end of the mass function of GMCs in the Milky
Way (see eq. 25), allowing for H I envelopes; they are also comparable to the
masses of GMAs that have been observed in external spiral galaxies (e.g. Vogel,
Kulkarni, & Scoville, 1988; Aalto et al., 1999; Rand, Lord, & Higdon, 1999). In
addition, the morphology and spacing of spiral-arm spurs predicted to form via
self-gravity effects are consistent with structures that have been observed at a
variety of wavelengths (e.g. Elmegreen, 1980; La Vigne, Vogel, & Ostriker, 2006).
This spacing (of several times the Jeans length in the arm, c2s /[GΣgal, arm ]) is sim-
ilar to that of giant HII regions arranged as “beads on a string” along spiral arms
in many grand design spirals (Elmegreen & Elmegreen, 1983), and also similar
to the spacings of giant infrared clumps observed with Spitzer along the spiral
arms of interacting galaxies IC 2163 and NGC 2207 (Elmegreen et al., 2006).
These giant IR clumps typically host a number of individual (optically-observed)
H II regions associated with star clusters. While current mm-wavelength obser-
vations have insufficient resolution to identify sub-condensations within GMAs
in external galaxies, it is expected that their internal turbulence would create
density substructure, just as the internal turbulence of GMCs fragments them
38 McKee & Ostriker
into clumps. Since the mean density within GMCs is comparable to the typical
density of cold clouds in the atomic medium, the pre-existing cloudy structure
of the diffuse ISM would contribute to, but not dominate, the internal structure
within GMCs. In this “top-down” picture, the more massive, self-gravitating,
substructures within GMAs (or analogous atomic “superclouds”) would then be-
come gravitationally bound GMCs.
Although large-scale self-gravitating instabilities appear necessary for forming
massive GMCs, and many low-mass GMCs may form via fragmentation of mas-
sive GMCs or GMAs, it remains possible that a proportion of the low-mass GMCs
form through other mechanisms. Several recent studies have explored the pos-
sibility of GMC assembly via colliding supersonic flows (e.g Chernin, Efremov,
& Voinovich, 1995; Vázquez-Semadeni, Passot, & Pouquet, 1995; Ballesteros-
Paredes, Hartmann, & Vázquez-Semadeni, 1999; Heitsch et al., 2005; Vázquez-
Semadeni et al., 2007); in this scenario the post-shock gas in the stagnation region
(which in fact becomes turbulent) represents the nascent GMC. For diffuse ISM
gas at mean density ρ̄ with relative (converging) velocity vrel , a total column of
shocked gas Σcl builds up over time

Σcl 7 NH nH −1 vrel −1
taccum = = 1.6 × 10 yr ; (34)
ρ̄vrel 1021 cm−2 1 cm−3 20 km s−1
note that, modulo order-unity coefficients, this time is the same as the result
in equation (31), with the velocity dispersion of the cloud distribution replaced
by the relative velocity of the converging flow. Correlated flows can only be
maintained up to the flow timescale over the largest spatial scale
√of the turbulence,
∼ 2H ∼ 300 pc. With vrel equal to the RMS relative velocity 6σ for a Gaussian
with 1D velocity dispersion σ ≈ 7 km s−1 , this is ≈ 2 × 107 yr, yielding a column
≈ 1021 cm−2 for n̄ ≈ 1 cm−3 (note that the shock velocity is about vrel /2).
If the interstellar magnetic field does not limit the compression of the shocked
gas (an artificial assumption, requiring flow along field lines only), the post-
shock gas would have high enough density for significant amounts of H2 to form
within the overall accumulation time, and the shielding from the diffuse UV is
sufficient for CO to begin to form (Hartmann, Ballesteros-Paredes, & Bergin,
2001; Bergin et al., 2004). However, it should be noted that for a shock velocity
of 10 km s−1 , corresponding to a relative velocity of 20 km s−1 , less than half
the C is in CO after 108 yr according to the 1D calculations of Bergin et al.
(2004). Turbulence-induced clumping can accelerate molecule formation rates
(Elmegreen, 2000; Glover & Mac Low, 2007), alleviating the timescale problem.
The molecule formation rate is proportional to the mass-weighted mean density
hniM , which is larger than the volume-weighted mean density n̄ ≡ hniV in a
turbulent flow (see §2.1.4). Since hniM /n̄ ∼ 10 for typical turbulence levels
in GMCs, this reduces the typical molecule formation time (Tielens, 2005), ∼
2 × 109 yr (T /10 K)−1/2 /hniM , to 1-2 Myr. Even so, the discussion above shows
that the maximum column density produced in the colliding-flow scenario is ∼
1021 cm−2 , which is lower by an order of magnitude than the mean value of the
column of molecular gas in Milky Way GMCs; thus, this process can account for at
most a small fraction of the molecular gas mass in GMCs. Because gravitational
instabilities are suppressed by the high Q values in interarm regions, on the
other hand, the turbulent accumulation mechanism may be more important there.
Potentially, this may account for the observed difference (see above) between arm
and interarm GMC masses in the Milky Way, as well as for the very low surface
densities Σcl observed for many of the outer-Galaxy molecular clouds (Heyer,
Carpenter, & Snell, 2001).
Finally, we note that the dynamical considerations for gravitationally-bound
cloud formation apply whether the diffuse gas is primarily atomic, as is the case
in the Solar neighborhood and the outer portions of galaxies more generally, or
whether the diffuse gas is primarily molecular, as is true in the inner portions of
many galaxies. The time and length scales involved depend on the effective pres-
sure in the diffuse gas, which includes thermal as well as turbulent and magnetic
terms. If the diffuse gas is primarily molecular (or cold atomic) by mass, then the
mean turbulent and Alfvén speeds will exceed the thermal speed in the dense gas.
The thermal sound speed cs in equations (32) and (33) must then be replaced
by an appropriately-defined ceff that incorporates the effects of turbulent kinetic
and magnetic pressures (the form of ceff would depend on the detailed multiphase
structure of the gas). Similarly, the characteristic timescale for self-gravitating
cloud formation becomes
−1
ceff 7
ceff Σgal
tJ,2D = = 3 × 10 yr . (35)
GΣgal 10 km s−1 100 M⊙ pc−2
Turbulent velocity dispersions and magnetic field strengths are observed to be

similar in the cold and warm diffuse gas in the Solar neighborhood (Heiles &
Troland, 2003, 2005), and both observations and simulations (Piontek & Os-
triker, 2005) show that magnetic pressure is generally a factor two larger than
the thermal pressure.
The transition from having primarily atomic to primarily molecular gas typ-
ically occurs where the total gas surface density Σgal ≈ 12 M⊙ pc−2 (Wong &
Blitz, 2002; Blitz & Rosolowsky, 2004) and where the mean midplane pressure is
inferred to lie in the range P/k = 104 − 105 K cm−3 (Blitz & Rosolowsky, 2006).
This transition occurs due to a combination of increased self-shielding (hence a
lower H2 dissociation rate) as Σgal increases, and increased density (hence in-
creased H2 formation rate) as both Σgal and the stellar surface density increase
toward the center of a galaxy (Elmegreen, 1993a; Blitz & Rosolowsky, 2004).
3.2.2 CLOUD EVOLUTION AND DESTRUCTION GMCs are born in
spiral arms downstream from the large-scale shock fronts, and begin life in a very
turbulent state. As they contract under the influence of gravity, this turbulence
decays, although the rate of decay is slowed by compression. Mestel & Spitzer
(1956) conjectured that turbulence would decay in about a crossing time, and
for that reason rejected turbulence as a mechanism for supporting clouds against
gravitational collapse (see also Mouschovias, Tassis, & Kunz, 2006, who argue for
magnetic support). Indeed, in simulations that do not include energy injection,
the contraction eventually evolves into free-fall collapse (cf. Vázquez-Semadeni
et al., 2007, who simulated the formation of molecular clouds in colliding flows,
as discussed above), which is generally not observed. Furthermore, as discussed
in §3.1, turbulence in molecular clouds is observed to be ubiquitous, suggesting
that there is some mechanism acting to inject turbulent energy into clouds. How
important is energy injection to the structure and evolution of molecular clouds?
Broadly speaking, there are two modes of energy injection, external and in-
ternal. External mechanisms tap the turbulence in the diffuse ISM, and because
these modes are large scale, external driving would tend to yield a power spec-
trum that rises all the way to the largest scale in the GMC (see §2.1.1). In terms
40 McKee & Ostriker
of total amplitudes, however, external driving may have limited practical im-
portance. For example, while cloud-cloud collisions could drive turbulence, they
may be too rare to be important (except possibly within the denser portions of
spiral arms; see above). Magnetorotational instability (MRI) in the Galactic disk
(Sellwood & Balbus, 1999) connects GMCs to the diffuse ISM by threaded field
lines and could therefore help drive GMC turbulence, but it is difficult for this
to be effective since GMCs live for only a small fraction of a rotation period (see
below), and since MRI is modest compared to other kinetic turbulence drivers in
inner galaxies (Piontek & Ostriker, 2005). Supernovae are the dominant energy
source in most of the diffuse interstellar medium (Mac Low & Klessen, 2004),
with instabilities in spiral shocks making a significant contribution in spiral arm
regions (Kim, Kim, & Ostriker, 2006). It is difficult, however, for these (or
other) processes to transmit energy from the diffuse ISM into molecular clouds,
which are much denser (Yorke et al., 1989). In fact, the density contrast be-
tween molecular clouds and the ambient medium means that energy tends to be
reflected from clouds rather than being transmitted into them (e.g., Elmegreen,
1999 and Heitsch & Burkert, 2002 showed this for externally generated Alfvén
waves). Thus, “external” energy is primarily limited to the turbulence GMCs
inherit from their formation stages.
Internal energy injection is due to feedback from protostars and newly formed
stars. This mechanism is observed to be important, but it remains to be shown
that it can account for the ubiquity of turbulence given that star formation is
intermittent in both space and time. For example, Mooney & Solomon (1988)
find that 1/4 of a sample of inner-Galaxy GMCs show no evidence for the pres-
ence of O stars. Norman & Silk (1980) were the first to analyze the importance
of energy injection by stellar outflows. At the time of their work, bipolar out-
flows from protostars were unknown, and they focused on winds from T Tauri
stars. They suggested that these winds would blow cavities that would govern
the structure of the clouds. Franco (1983) and Franco & Cox (1983) considered
rotationally driven winds from protostars as well as T Tauri winds. They es-
timated the star formation rate required to keep swept-up shells colliding at a
rate high enough to keep the cloud turbulent, and showed that this was roughly
consistent with estimates of the Galactic star formation rate. The effect of stellar
energy injection on the surrounding molecular cloud can be described in terms
of an energy equation for the cloud (McKee, 1989, 1999; Krumholz, Matzner, &
McKee, 2006), de/dt = G − L, where e is the energy per unit mass (including
gravitational energy) and G and L represent energy gains and losses, respectively.
The injection of energy into a cloud by stars is often accompanied by mass loss
from the cloud. Under the simplifying assumption that mass lost from the cloud
does not change the energy per unit mass, the specific energy losses are due to
the decay of MHD turbulence, which occurs at a rate (see §2.1.2)
σ 3 2R

L = 2.5 . (36)
R λ
For a cloud of fixed size, the largest driving scale is λ ≃ 2R; for a cloud undergoing
global expansion and contraction, the largest scale is λ ≃ 4R. Next, consider the
energy gains. Since the shocks associated with the energy injection are radiative,
most of the energy injected by outflows is radiated √ away. The outflow energy
available to drive turbulence in the cloud is about ( 3/2)pw σ, where pw = mw vw
is the momentum, mw the mass, and vw the velocity of the (proto)stellar outflow;
√
as a result, G = ( 3/2)(Ṁ∗ /M )(pw σ/m∗ ), where Ṁ∗ is the star formation rate
and M is the cloud (or clump) mass. Balancing the energy gains and losses,
G = L, then gives the star formation rate necessary to maintain the turbulent
motions. Norman & Silk (1980), Franco (1983), and McKee (1989) all estimated
outflow momenta pw /m∗ ≃ 50 − 70 km s−1 for a typical stellar mass m∗ = 0.5M⊙
and found that the energy injection rate was sufficient to support star-forming
clouds against collapse. Li & Nakamura (2006) and Nakamura & Li (2007) have
carried out 3D MHD simulations of a forming star cluster, and found that the rate
at which energy is input from protostellar winds maintains the surrounding gas
in approximate virial equilibrium. Matzner (2007) has given a general discussion
of turbulence driven by protostellar outflows. In particular, he has shown on the
basis of dimensional analysis that if outflows occur at a rate per unit volume
S and inject an average momentum I into a medium of density ρ0 , then on
scales small compared to that at which the outflows overlap, the line width—size
relation is σ ∝ (SIr/ρ0 )1/2 , where the coefficient is of order unity.
There are both observational and theoretical caveats to this picture. Obser-
vationally, Richer et al. (2000) cite pw /m∗ ≃ 0.3vK , where vK is the Keplerian
velocity at the stellar surface; for vK ≃ 200 km s−1 , this is pw /m∗ ≃ 60 km s−1 ,
in agreement with the values used in these models of energy injection and in
agreement with both X-wind and disk models of protostellar outflows. How-
ever, some recent observations are in striking disagreement with these estimates:
based on observations of CO outflows by Bontemps et al. (1996), Walawen-
der, Bally, & Reipurth (2005) infer a much lower average outflow momentum
pw = 1.2M⊙ km s−1 (it should be noted, however, that they infer a much larger
momentum, pw = 18 M⊙ km s−1 , in a protostellar jet). Quillen et al. (2005)
discovered a number of CO cavities in NGC 1333, which they identified as fossil
outflows with pw ∼ 1 M⊙ km s−1 ; this estimate of the momentum has been con-
firmed in numerical simulations of fossil outflows (Cunningham et al., 2006). Like
Walawender et al., they concluded that these outflows could support a region of
active star formation like NGC 1333 against gravity, but outflows could not sup-
port the larger Perseus cloud in which it is embedded. Clearly, more observational
work is needed to determine the rate of protostellar energy injection.
The theoretical caveat is that protostellar outflows are unlikely to be effective
on the scale of GMCs. Turbulent driving yields a flat power spectrum at scales
larger than the input scale of turbulence, regardless of magnetization (see §2.1.1).
Because the scale of protostellar jets and outflows is small compared to that of a
GMC, driving by low-mass stars is inconsistent with observed turbulence spectra
that continue rising up to scales of tens of pc (see §2.1.5); this effect is partly
ameliorated by the clustering of stars, since protostellar outflows from a cluster
will extend to larger scales than those from individual stars. Protostellar outflows
remain a viable energy source for clumps and cores within GMCs, however.
Massive stars can inject more momentum into GMCs through H II regions than
do the much more numerous low-mass stars through their outflows (Matzner,
2002); in addition, H II regions can inject energy on the scale of the GMC,
overcoming the limitation of protostellar outflows in this regard. The dominant
destruction mechanism for GMCs is via photoevaporation by blister H II regions
(see below). The momentum given to a GMC by the loss of a mass δM in a
blister H II region is about 2cII δM , where cII ≃ 10 km s−1 is the sound speed in
the H II region (the factor 2 represents the sum of the thermal and ram pressures
in a blister H II region). If the overall star formation efficiency is ǫGMC , then a
42 McKee & Ostriker
cloud of initial mass M will form a mass of stars ǫGMC M and will lose a mass
(1 − ǫGMC )M via photoevaporation. The ratio of the momentum given to the
cloud by H II regions to that given by protostellar winds is then

pH II (1 − ǫGMC ) 2cII (1 − ǫGMC )
= ≃ , (37)
pw ǫGMC 60 km s−1 3ǫGMC
where we used the value pw /m∗ ≃ 60 km s−1 from Richer et al. (2000); if pro-
tostellar momentum injection is less efficient than this, then H II regions are
correspondingly more important. (Note that if the cloud is disrupted before it
is photoevaporated, as can happen to smaller GMCs—see below—both the mass
loss and the star formation will be reduced, but pH II /pw will be relatively unaf-
fected.) For GMCs, which have star formation efficiencies ǫGMC ∼ a few percent,
H II regions dominate the energy injection by an order of magnitude. Large OB
associations do not occur in small molecular clouds, so photoevaporation is less
important in such clouds; Matzner (2002) estimates that protostellar outflows
dominate the energy injection for clouds with masses . 4 × 104 M⊙ .
The same H II regions that inject energy to support GMCs also destroy them.
Blitz & Shu (1980) estimated that H II regions would inject enough energy to
unbind a GMC in about 107 yr. Using a simple analytic model for the evolution
of blister H II regions developed by Whitworth (1979) and confirmed in numerical
simulations by Yorke et al. (1989), Williams & McKee (1997) concluded that an
expanding H II region would sweep up more mass than it ionized, so that a very
large H II region would disrupt the cloud before ionizing it. The condition for
cloud disruption—that the cloud be engulfed by the H II region—is difficult to
meet for massive GMCs (& 106 M⊙ ), but relatively common for small GMCs.
Indeed, the Orion molecular cloud may well have been disrupted by previous
generations of star formation. If one assumes that the specific star formation
rate is independent of GMC mass, then the observed rate of star formation in
the Galaxy implies that GMCs with masses ∼ 106 M⊙ live for about 30 Myr.
Matzner (2002) assumed that the star formation rate in a cloud is self-regulating
and found that the specific star formation rate increases with cloud mass; as
result, he obtained smaller lifetimes for large GMCs, ∼ 20 Myr. Krumholz,
Matzner, & McKee (2006) obtained a similar value with a more complete model
for GMC evolution (see below).
Observational estimates of GMC lifetimes are difficult, although chemical clocks
can be used to measure the lifetime of clumps and cores within them (see §3.1.2).
For the LMC and M33, Blitz et al. (2007) discuss empirical measures of GMC
lifetimes based on their spatial correlation with H II regions and young clusters
and associations. About 25% of the GMCs show no evidence for high-mass star
formation. This can be interpreted as a delay in the onset of star formation
due either to the effects of magnetic fields (McKee, 1989; Tassis & Mouschovias,
2004), or to the time required to create cluster-forming clumps in a turbulent
cloud (from simulations this time is ∼ 1 − 3 tff ; e.g. Ostriker, Stone, & Gam-
mie, 2001; Heitsch, Mac Low, & Klessen, 2001; Krasnopolsky & Gammie, 2005;
Vázquez-Semadeni et al., 2005); alternatively, if the star formation rate under-
goes significant fluctuations (e.g., Krumholz, Matzner, & McKee, 2006), it could
simply represent a lull in the star formation rate. In the LMC, about 60% of
star clusters with ages < 10 Myr are within 40 pc of a GMC, while older clusters
have no significant spatial correlation with GMCs; Blitz et al. (2007) therefore
infer that GMCs are destroyed within about 6 Myr of cluster formation. There
are also slightly more than twice as many clouds harboring small H II regions as
those containing large H II regions and clusters; they infer a lifetime of 14 Myr for
this stage. These statistics imply that the typical time interval between when an
H II region turns on and when the cloud is destroyed is ∼ 20 Myr. Including the
GMCs without high-mass stars, they infer a total GMC lifetime of 27 Myr. There
are several caveats to this analysis, however. First, the GMCs are identified only
by their CO emission; since CO is more readily destroyed in the low-metallicity
environment of the LMC than in the Galaxy (van Dishoeck & Black, 1988), some
GMCs could have been missed, both in the early stages of evolution when the
density is low and in the late stage when the UV flux is high. Second, the mean
mass of the clouds increases in going from the starless sample and the small-H II
sample to the cluster sample; in fact, the two largest clouds are in the cluster
sample, and overall just 10-15% of massive (M > 105.5 M⊙ ) GMCs in the LMC
and M33 lack (high-mass) star formation. The naive interpretation of this secular
trend is that massive GMCs (which contain most of the molecular mass) have a
more rapid onset of star formation than do low-mass clouds, although this is not
a unique explanation. Next, the associations are unbound and dissolve rapidly;
clusters dissolve more slowly, but one still cannot assume that their relative num-
bers accurately track the relative lifetimes. It is not clear how these latter two
issues affect the analysis. Finally, large associations could displace the clouds by
the rocket effect rather than destroy them (a process termed “cloud shuffling”
by Elmegreen, 1979). Nonetheless, observations of extragalactic GMCs offer the
most promising avenue for getting an observational handle on GMC evolution.
How do GMCs and the star-forming clumps within them evolve in the presence
of stellar and protostellar feedback? In the quasistatic approximation, a molecular
cloud will be in approximate virial equilibrium. Under the additional assumption
that the rate-limiting step in star formation is ambipolar diffusion, McKee (1989)
found that GMCs contract under the influence of their self-gravity until the con-
traction is halted by stellar feedback; the equilibrium is stable and the column
density is AV ≃ 4 − 8 mag, comparable to the observed value. Dropping the as-
sumption of quasi-static evolution and using the time-dependent virial theorem
for a spherical, homologous cloud, Matzner & McKee (1999) found that a star-
forming clump undergoes several bursts of star formation. Krumholz, Matzner,
& McKee (2006) extended this work by using a theory for the star formation rate
that is consistent with the Kennicutt-Schmidt law (Krumholz & McKee, 2005
— see §3.4) and the full time-dependent virial and energy equations to solve for
the evolution of GMCs that are large enough (& 105 M⊙ ) that H II regions dom-
inate the energy injection (Matzner, 2002). Their time-dependent integrations
assume spherical, homologous evolution for each GMC, and follow the formation
and dynamical effects of many individual H II regions, with stars selected from
the IMF. Blister H II regions act to destroy the clouds, but they also provide a
confining pressure due to the recoil associated with the mass loss. The prinicipal
results of the time-dependent models are (1) clouds live for a few crossing times,
∼ 30 Myr for clouds with M & 106 M⊙ , in agreement with observational esti-
mates; (2) clouds are close to equilibrium, with virial parameters αvir ≃ 1 − 2;
(3) the column density of the clouds is NH ≃ 1022 cm−2 , in agreement with ob-
servation; (4) large clouds are destroyed by photoevaporation, but small clouds
(M . 2 × 105 M⊙ ) are disrupted before half their mass is photoionized; and
(5) GMCs convert ∼ 5 − 10% of their mass into stars before they are destroyed.
H II regions are unable to support GMCs with columns significantly greater than
44 McKee & Ostriker
1022 cm−2 . Krumholz, Matzner, & McKee (2006) conjecture that such clouds can
occur in regions in which the mean density is not much less than the density in
the GMCs, so that external driving is more efficient; such conditions could occur
in starbursts. Testing and extension of these cloud evolution/destruction models
via full 3D numerical simulations has not yet been attempted, but development
and verification of the necessary computational codes is well underway (Mellema
et al., 2006; Mac Low et al., 2006; Krumholz, Stone, & Gardiner, 2006).
3.3 Core Mass Functions and the IMF

3.3.1 OBSERVATIONS OF THE STELLAR IMF AND THE CMF
How is the distribution of stellar masses, or initial mass function (IMF), estab-
lished? This is one of most basic questions a complete theory of star formation
must answer, but also one of the most difficult. Current evidence suggests that
the IMF is quite similar in many different locations throughout the Milky Way,
with the possible exception of star clusters formed very near the Galactic Cen-
ter (Scalo, 1998b presents evidence for significant variations in the IMF, but
Elmegreen, 1999 argues that much, if not all, of this is consistent with the ex-
pected statistical variations). The standard IMF of Kroupa (2001) is a three-part
power-law with breaks at 0.08 M⊙ and 0.5 M⊙ ; i.e. dN∗ /d ln m∗ ∝ m−α ∗ with
α = 1.3 for 0.5 < m∗ / M⊙ < 50, α = 0.3 for 0.08 < m∗ / M⊙ < 0.5, and
α = −0.7 for 0.01 < m∗ / M⊙ < 0.08. The slope of the IMF at m∗ ∼ > M was
⊙
originally identified by Salpeter (1955), who found α = 1.35. Up to ∼ 1 M⊙ ,
a log-normal functional form dN∗ /d ln(m∗ ) ∝ exp[−(ln m∗ − ln mc )2 /(2σ 2 )] pro-
vides a smooth fit for the observed mass distribution (Miller & Scalo, 1979), with
Chabrier (2005) finding that mc ≈ 0.2 M⊙ and σ ≈ 0.55 applies both for indi-
vidual stars in the disk and in young clusters; the system IMF (i.e., counting
binaries as a single systems) has mc = 0.25M⊙ . Thus, the main properties of the
IMF that any theory must explain are (i) the “Salpeter” power-law slope at high
mass, (ii) the break and turnover slightly below ∼ 1 M⊙ , (iii) the upper limit on
stellar masses ∼ 150M⊙ (Elmegreen, 2000; Figer, 2005; Oey & Clarke, 2005), and
(iv) the universality of these features over a wide range of star-forming environ-
ments, apparently independent of the mean density, turbulence level, magnetic
field strength, and to large extent also metallicity. Theory predicts that there
should be a lower limit on (sub)stellar masses (Low & Lynden-Bell, 1976), but
this has not been confirmed observationally.
Important additional information has been provided by recent mm and submm
continuum surveys covering both cluster regions and larger areas in star-forming
systems (e.g. Motte, Andre, & Neri 1998; Testi & Sargent 1998; Johnstone et
al. 2000, 2001; Motte et al. 2001; Beuther & Schilke 2004; Reid & Wilson 2005,
2006a; Stanke et al. 2006; Enoch et al. 2006; Nutter & Ward-Thompson 2007).
Within continuum maps, high-density concentrations representing (starless) cores
have been identified in sufficient numbers (and with sufficent resolution) that
core mass functions analogous to the IMF can be defined. Similar core mass
functions (CMFs) may be derived using extinction data from well-sampled maps
(Lada, Alves, & Lombardi, 2007), and molecular line maps in high-density tracers
(Onishi et al., 2002). Studies of the CMF using extinction maps are only just
beginning, but they promise to be very important given the lower systematic
errors that are possible with this method. An excellent recent summary of the
statistical properties of observed cores is given by Ward-Thompson et al. (2007).
The CMFs derived from many independent studies and methods are in good
agreement with each other, and are remarkably similar in functional form to the
stellar IMF. In particular, regardless of the total mass and size of the star-forming
cloud, and regardless of whether cores are well separated or highly clustered, the
high-end CMF (above 1 M⊙ ) is consistent with a power law. Applying a uniform
analysis to data from 11 high- and low-mass star-forming regions, Reid & Wilson
(2006b) find α = 0.8 − 2.1, with the mean value α = 1.4. Observed CMFs
for relatively nearby clouds in the references cited above also show a peak and
turnover at low mass in the range ∼ 0.2−1 M⊙ . For distant clouds, the peak core
mass is larger, but lack of resolution and hence low-mass incompleteness affects
these results. Observed well-resolved CMF distributions are thus very similar
to the stellar IMF, but shifted to higher mass by a factor of a few. For CMFs
derived from mm and submm observations, this factor involves some uncertainty
associated with conversion from dust emissivity to total mass. The CMF derived
from extinction in the Pipe nebula, which is not subject to this uncertainty, is
shifted to higher mass by a factor of 3 with respect to the standard stellar IMF
(Alves, Lombardi, & Lada, 2007).
The mirroring of the “universal” IMF by the (possibly also universal) CMF
suggests that the stellar mass distribution is imposed early in the star-forming
process. The final mass of a star appears to be controlled by the available reser-
voir of the core from which it forms, rather than, for example, being defined
by a termination of accretion due to internal stellar processes. The shift of the
observed CMF relative to the IMF nevertheless implies that stellar feedback and
other processes in the collapse or post-collapse stage affect stellar masses. Magne-
tized protostellar disk winds are believed to reduce the stellar mass compared to
core mass by a factor of a few (see discussion in §4.2.6). In particular, Matzner &
McKee (2000) predicted that the efficiency of a single star formation event in an
individual core is ǫcore ≃ 0.25 − 0.7, depending on the degree of flattening, which
is comparable to the values implied by the observations cited above. Because
the efficiency is not sensitive to the parameters involved, this implies a similar
shift from CMF to IMF at all masses. Given the uncertainty in the CMF nor-
malization, the inefficiency of single star formation may account for essentially
the whole CMF → IMF shift. Some further fragmentation of presently-observed
massive cores during their collapse may also occur, but provided that the major-
ity of the mass goes into a single object, this will leave the high-mass end of the
CMF relatively unchanged. Since the CMF is already dominated by low-mass
cores (by mass as well as by number), the addition of low-mass stars formed as
fragments from collapsing high-mass cores would negligibly affect the low-mass
end of the IMF.
Molecular line observations of low-mass cores, whether found in isolation (as
in Taurus) or in close proximity to other cores in a dense, cluster-forming clump
(as in ρ Oph), show that these cores have very low nonthermal internal velocities
(Andre et al, 2006). Since weak internal turbulence implies that little density sub-
structure is present within these cores, they are unlikely to undergo subsequent
fragmentation during collapse, except to form binaries. The low-mass portion of
the CMF should therefore be conserved in mapping to the IMF, modulo mass re-
moval by outflows. Although cores in the high-mass end of the CMF are turbulent
and thus in principle subject to further fragmentation, the agreement between
the CMF and IMF suggests that this is not a dominant effect.
The environments of observed prestellar cores provide further clues to the pro-
46 McKee & Ostriker
cesses involved in their formation. Most stars form in clusters (Lada & Lada,
2003; see §4.3.5) and correspondingly, most (starless) molecular cores are part of
larger cluster-forming dense clumps. These cluster-forming clumps2 , as observed
for example in Ophiuchus, Serpens, Perseus, and Orion, have supersonic internal
turbulent linewidths (even though the individual cores within them are subther-
mal). Compared to isolated cores, the cores in clusters tend to be more compact
in overall size and have higher densities and column densities; they are also lower
in mass (Ward-Thompson et al., 2007). The column densities of cluster-forming
clumps are generally quite large, and in particular they exceed the mean column
densities of the GMCs in which they are formed. In Perseus, where 80% of the
mm cores lie in groups and 50% are in clusters (Enoch et al., 2006), 50% of the
total cloud mass is at AV < 4 and 80% is at AV < 6, whereas 90% of the mass in
prestellar cores is in larger structures that have AV > 6, and 50% is at AV > 8
(Kirk, Johnstone, & Di Francesco, 2006). Similarly in Ophiuchus, the prestellar
cores are found in high-column density regions (AV > 15 for > 90% of the core
mass), while most of the cloud’s mass has much lower column densities (70% is
at AV < 7) (Johnstone, Di Francesco, & Kirk, 2004). The prestellar cores them-
selves represent only a tiny fraction of the total cloud mass: 5% in Perseus (Enoch
et al., 2006), and 3% in Ophichus (Johnstone, Di Francesco, & Kirk, 2004); this
is comparable to the net observed star formation efficiency over the lifetime of a
GMC (see §3.4). On the largest scales, GMCs generally consist of collections of
filaments, and both the clusters of cores and most of the individual isolated cores
are embedded in these filaments. The structure formation that produces cores,
and eventually stars, is therefore clearly a hierarchical process.
3.3.2 THEORETICAL PROPOSALS AND NUMERICAL RESULTS
Many theories have been proposed that aim to explain the IMF or some aspect of
it, and more recently to explain the CMF as well (see Elmegreen 2001 and Bonnell,
Larson, & Zinnecker 2007 for recent reviews). While none of the proposals to date
have won general acceptance, several have introduced elements that are likely to
be important in the eventual theory that is developed. Numerical simulations
have been valuable in demonstrating that the general characteristics of observed
CMFs arise naturally in turbulent, self-gravitating flows, and they have also been
useful in testing certain specific hypotheses. However, many features that are seen
in the simulations are not yet understood in a fundamental sense, and limited
numerical resolution may affect some existing results.
A variety of different numerical models have been used in computational stud-
ies of the mass distributions of bound and unbound condensations in turbulent
systems. Most models have adopted an isothermal equation of state: using SPH
techniques, Klessen & Burkert (2001), Bonnell, Bate, & Vine (2003), Bonnell,
Clarke, & Bate (2006), and Klessen (2001) analyzed decaying-turbulence mod-
els with a variety of power spectra, and Klessen (2001) and Ballesteros-Paredes
et al. (2006) analyzed driven turbulence models. Using grid-based codes in the
unmagnetized case, Ballesteros-Paredes et al. (2006) and Padoan et al. (2007) an-
alyzed driven-turbulence models. Using grid-based codes and including magnetic
fields, Gammie et al. (2003) analyzed decaying-turbulence models, and Vazquez-
Semadeni, Ballesteros-Paredes, & Rodriguez (1997), Ballesteros-Paredes & Mac
Low (2002), Li et al. (2004) and Padoan et al. (2007) analyzed driven-turbulence
models. Tilley & Pudritz (2004) analyzed decaying-turbulence unmagnetized
2
Referred to as “cluster-forming cores” by Ward-Thompson et al. (2007)
models from a grid-based code.

Other simulations have investigated the effects of non-isothermal equations of
state. Li, Klessen, & Mac Low (2003) analyzed driven-turbulence SPH simula-
tions that used a range of polytropic indices. Bate, Bonnell, & Bromm (2003)
and Bate & Bonnell (2005) analyzed the results of SPH decaying-turbulence sim-
ulations with a switch from isothermal to T ∝ ρ0.4 at density 10−13 g cm−3 , to
represent the transition from optically-thin to -thick conditions. Jappsen et al.
(2005) and Bonnell, Clarke, & Bate (2006) investigated the result of switching
from a weakly cooling to weakly heating barotropic equation of state at a range
of densities n ∼ 104 − 107 cm−3 , using driven- and decaying-turbulence SPH sim-
ulations, respectively.
The distributions obtained by applying clump-finding techniques to simulation
“data cubes” share many characteristics, generally showing clump mass functions
dominated by the low-mass end and tails at high mass that are (marginally) con-
sistent with a power laws having indices similar to the Salpeter value. In detail,
however, the mass functions depend on the adopted clump-finding algorithm and
on parameters such as density threshold levels and smoothing scales, as well as
on physical properties including the Mach number and the history of a system.
In many simulations that include self-gravity, the high-end slope tends to be-
come shallower over time, as massive objects grow larger. This change in slope
may not represent realistic evolution, if massive condensations in fact should
undergo fragmentation that the simulations do not follow. Failure to capture
fragmentation during collapse could affect results from either grid-based or SPH
simulations. Fragmentation is seeded by turbulence, which imposes fluctuations
in the density (Sasao, 1973). These fluctuations grow as a condensation collapses,
and in principle could ultimately result in fragmentation if they become locally
Jeans unstable (Hunter, 1962; Lynden-Bell, 1973). Fluctuations at smaller and
smaller mass scales would grow to be highly nonlinear if collapse were to proceed
unchecked, so in order to capture this numerically, turbulence at scales below
the sonic scale would have to be resolved before collapse commences in a given
region. However, it is likely that in reality fragmentation of collapsing high mass
condensations is prevented by real physical effects, rather than numerical effects:
accretion onto stars formed early in the collapse process heats the surrounding
gas significantly, which helps limit further fragmentation (Krumholz, 2006), and
for condensations in cluster-forming regions, outflows from nearby stars inject
small-scale turbulence that may provide support sufficient to prevent rapid lo-
calized collapse (Tan, Krumholz, & McKee 2006; Nakamura & Li 2007; see also
Klessen 2001). Until physical processes enter to limit further breakup of massive
condensations during their evolution, self-similarity implies they would fragment
due to the same turbulent processes that produced the massive condensations
in the first place. This is presumably why the IMF in clusters is the same as
that in distributed star formation. Observed dense clumps break up into indi-
vidual small cores when imaged at high resolution, suggesting that much of the
fragmentation is in place prior to collapse. Indeed, the fact that the turnover
of the IMF is similar to the Jeans or Bonnor-Ebert mass evaluated at the mean
turbulent kinetic pressure within GMCs (see §3.1), Pkin /kB ∼ 3 × 105 K cm−3 ,
suggests that the ambient pressure that sets the “typical” star’s mass is not sig-
nificantly increased above this level by collapse prior to fragmentation. However,
note that the correspondence between the turnover in the IMF and the Bonnor-
Ebert mass evaluated at the mean turbulent pressure appears to break down in
48 McKee & Ostriker
star clusters like the Orion Nebula Cluster (Hillenbrand & Hartmann, 1998) and
globular clusters (Paresce & De Marchi, 2000), which are believed to have formed
at substantially greater pressures (McKee & Tan, 2003); the reason for this is not
clear.
A common numerical “shortcut” to studying cluster formation is to focus on
just a single cluster, rather than the whole hierarchical system; this allows the
collapse and fragmentation to be better resolved. Models of this kind initiate
a simulation at high density with comparable internal turbulent and gravita-
tional energy. However, this approach misses an aspect of the real situation
which may be quite important: self-gravitating massive condensations develop
out of non-self-gravitating gas in which pertubations have already been imposed
by turbulence. In simulations where the initial kinetic energy does not exceed
the gravitational energy, collapse occurs before the turbulence is able to imprint
a realistic density structure on the system, such that the subsequent fragmenta-
tion may also be unrealistic. In particular, this may lead to massive fragments
continuing to grow over time as they capture low-turbulence unstructured gas
from their surroundings (“competitive accretion” —see §4.1.2). To obtain a re-
liable measure of the high-end CMF from numerical models, it will be necessary
to perform simulations that include large scales as well as cluster scales, and
adequately resolve massive condensations both prior to and during collapse. In
addition, physical processes representing the feedback from star formation must
be properly included in order to impose realistic limits on fragmentation, coales-
cence, and accretion after collapse begins.
Another feature of numerical simulations that is at least qualitatively in accord
with observations is the presence of a resolved peak and turnover in the CMF.
Exactly how the location of this peak depends on model parameters, however, is
not well yet determined. In some simulations, the CMF peak is found to be at
masses comparable to the initial Jeans mass of the system (these are primarily
low-Mach-number simulations), while in other simulations the peak is at much
lower mass (these are primarily at high Mach number). The turbulent power
spectrum can also affect the position of the CMF peak, and in some simulations
the peak is seen to move to larger mass over time. In fact, the position of the
peak for an isothermal simulation with a fixed turbulence scaling law must be
a function of two dimensionless parameters, the ratio of the total mass in the
system to the initial Jeans mass, and the turbulent Mach number on the largest
scale. For magnetized simulations, an additional parameter is the ratio of mass to
the magnetic critical mass. Although limited dependence on parameters has been
explored, a comprehensive and controlled study has not yet been performed. Note
that the mass-weighted density in a turbulent system increases as the turbulent
Mach number increases (see §2.1.4), so that the Jeans mass at the “typical”
(mass-weighted) cloud density decreases as the turbulence level increases, for a
given mean (volume-weighted) density and Jeans mass. This probably accounts
for why the peak of the CMF was found to be far below the mean Jeans mass in
studies with high M, and close to the mean Jeans mass in studies with lower M.
A recurrent theme in star formation theory is that the characteristic mass –
defined by the peak of the IMF – is the Jeans mass at some preferred density.
An upper limit on the preferred density, and hence a lower limit on the fragment
mass, is the value at which which the optical depth is unity over a Jeans length;
this yields a minimum fragment mass ≈ 0.007 M⊙ (Low & Lynden-Bell, 1976).
More recently, Larson (2005) has argued that the thermal coupling of gas to dust
at densities above nH = nc ≈ 106 cm−3 results in a shift from weakly-decreasing

to weakly-increasing temperature as a function of density (T ∝ ρ−0.27 changes to
to T ∝ ρ0.07 at Tmin ∼ 5 K), and that the Jeans mass ∼ 0.3 M⊙ at this inflection
point sets the preferred mass scale in the IMF. Part of Larson’s argument is
that if structure is filamentary, then the filaments will contract radially while
γ < 1; fragmentation into protostellar cores would occur when the filament’s
central density reaches nc and γ exceeds unity. This argument does not take into
account, however, that the mass per unit length of a filament may be determined
primarily by the turbulence which originally creates it. In this case, the density
nc defines a Jeans length (see eq. 20 in §2.2), so that the mass scale that emerges
would be set by this (fixed) length scale ∼ λJ (nc ) times the (variable) filament
mass per unit length. The simulations of Jappsen et al. (2005), which vary the
density nc at which the temperature minimum occurs, provide qualitative support
for Larson’s proposal in that the peak of the CMF moves to lower mass as nc
increases. The scaling of peak mass with nc in the simulations is not consistent
with the predicted mpeak ∝ n−0.95
c scaling, however. In addition, these models
did not test dependence on other parameters that may be important, such as the
Mach number of the turbulence or the total mass of the system.
A recent comprehensive proposal to explain the CMF and IMF has been ad-
vanced by Padoan & Nordlund (2002, 2004) (hereafter “PN”). They argue that
because the strength of any given compression (in a shock) is related to its corre-
sponding (pre-shock) spatial scale ℓ, a power-law turbulence spectrum |v(ℓ)| ∝ ℓq
will result in a distribution of clump masses that itself follows a power law. In
particular, they propose that the clump mass function produced by turbulence
in a magnetized medium will obey dN (m)/d ln m ∝ m−3/(3−2q) . They further
propose that at a given mass m, the fraction of clumps created by turbulence
that collapse is obtained by integrating the density PDF down to the density at
which that mass would be Jeans unstable, i.e. ρmin = π 5 σth 6 /(36m2 G3 ). With
this prescription, at high mass the limit of the integral ρmin → 0 and PN find
α = 3/(3 − 2q) ≈ 1.4. The position of the CMF peak would depend on the
properties of the density PDF; for a log-normal PDF (fM ; see eq. 5 in §2.1.4)
with µx = 0.5 − 2, the peak mass would be between 0.8 − 0.1 times the Jeans
mass at the mean (volume-weighted) density in the cloud.
The proposal of PN is attractive in its overall thrust, and analysis of numerical
simulations (Padoan et al., 2007) shows promising consistency with some of the
model predictions, such as a steepening of the CMF (larger α) with steeper
velocity power spectrum (larger q). The PN proposal, however, also suffers from
missing links in its theoretical underpinnings: (1) The effective value of vA is
defined by PN such that the typical compression ρ′ /ρ in a shock moving at v is a
factor v/vA (in fact, compression factors depend on the magnetic field direction as
well as strength). This effective vA is assumed to be independent of scale, and for
numerical comparisons with data they adopt a value small compared to the typical
value in a GMC of ∼ 2 km s−1 . (2) The argument used to obtain α = 3/(3 − 2q)
for turbulent clumps assumes that each pre-shock volume ℓ3 maps to a number of
post-shock volumes of mass m that is independent of ℓ; i.e. ℓ3 N (m)/L3 = const.
While this is plausible, other arguments can be made that draw on the scale-free
nature of turbulence, yet yield different results. Fleck (1996) and Elmegreen &
Falgarone (1996) have argued that in non-self gravitating turbulence one obtains
mN (m) = const. This scaling corresponds to converting a constant fraction of
the mass or volume behind every shock into clumps, ℓ′3 ρ′ N (m)/(L3 ρ) = const.,
50 McKee & Ostriker
where ℓ′ = ℓvA /v = ℓρ/ρ′ is the post-shock scale. One might also propose
that the filling factor of post-shock clumps within the whole volume should be
constant, i.e. ℓ′3 N (m)/L3 = const. This leads to N (m) ∝ m−(3−3q)/(3−2q) ,
or α = 0.75 for q = 1/2. While the assumption ℓ3 N (m)/L3 = const. in the
PN formulation yields results that are in agreement with measured CMFs, a
physical argument is needed to explain why this is the correct choice among
several plausible alternatives. In particular, since PN’s argument for the slope
α = 3/(3 − 2q) involves only turbulence, why does this value of α disagree with
the distinctly-shallower empirical mass spectrum (α ∼ 0.5; see §3.1) of non-self-
gravitating clumps in GMCs? (3) The argument PN use to obtain a formula
for the mass function does not appear to take account of substructure within
clumps at a given mass scale although the presence of substructure is implicit
in their picture. In particular, they assume that any region that is unstable
by the thermal Jeans criterion will collapse. An implicit requirement for this
is that at each density, a contiguous volume containing a mass in excess of the
Jeans mass is present. More generally, since hierarchical density structures are
clearly important in nature (most cores and stars are clustered), any fundamental
theory should identify how this this comes about. Given these difficulties, it
appears premature to accept the PN proposal in its current form, although it is
promising as a basis for future development.
3.4 The Large-Scale Rate of Star Formation

Much of this review focuses on the detailed physical processes of star formation at
and below GMC scales. To understand the structure of a given galaxy, however,
or the evolution of a population of galaxies over cosmological timescales, often
only a very gross characterization of the star formation processes – such as the
overall star formation rate (SFR) and the resulting IMF – is adequate. Many
empirical studies of disk galaxies characterize the SFR in terms of the number
of stars formed per unit time per unit area Σ̇∗ ; this is usually reported using
either averages over the whole of a galaxy within some outer radius R, or using
azimuthal averages over an annulus of width dR to give Σ̇∗ (R). Both of these
methods average over regions that may have widely varying SFRs, and the results
must be carefully interpreted as strong nonlinearities are involved. Fortunately,
with the data becoming available from large-scale galactic mapping surveys (e.g.
SONG and SINGS; Helfer et al., 2003; Kennicutt et al., 2003), it will soon be
possible to characterize SFRs on scales large compared to individual GMCs but
small enough to separately measure, e.g., SFRs for arm and interarm regions.
More fundamental than Σ̇∗ is the star formation or gas consumption timescale.
This is defined by tg∗ ≡ Σg /Σ̇∗ = Mg /Ṁ∗ , where Σg is the gas surface density;
the second equality assumes that the same area average is used for the total gas
mass Mg and star formation rate Ṁ∗ . The resulting timescale depends on the
gas tracer(s) chosen, which determines the range of gas densities included in Σg .
For a chemical species tracing gas in a class of structures denoted by S that have
mean internal gas density hρiV = ρS , and total mass MS , a convenient fiducial
time for comparison to tS∗ ≡ MS /Ṁ∗ is the free-fall time obtained by using ρS
in equation (14). The star formation or gas consumption rate is then
MS
Ṁ∗ ≡ ǫff,S , (38)
tff,S
where the efficiency over a free-fall time is ǫff,S = tff,S /tS∗ = ∆M∗ (tff,S )/MS (see
Krumholz & McKee, 2005 and Krumholz & Tan, 2007; note that they denote
this quantity by SFRff,S ). Note that the star formation efficiency ǫff,S over the
free-fall time at the mean local density of structures S differs from the star for-
mation efficiency ǫS over the mean lifetime of individual structures in class S,
which is discussed below. The definition in equation (38) is particularly useful
for describing star formation on local scales within GMCs, in which different
molecular transitions trace a relatively limited range of densities, and in which
densities can be obtained for individual structures that are spatially resolved and
have mass measurements from molecular line, dust continuum or extinction ob-
servations. Since most of the molecular gas, and essentially all star formation,
is found within GMCs, the SFR in a region with local surface density in GMCs,
ΣGMC , is given by Σ̇∗ = ǫff,GMC ΣGMC /tff,GMC . Here, tff,GMC is calculated using
the free-fall time within GMCs in a given region. Typical mean densities within
GMCs are nH ∼ 100 cm−3 , implying tff,GMC ∼ 4 Myr, but this may vary due to
the effects of spiral arms, for example. In clumps or cores within GMCs, ρS can
be larger by orders of magnitude compared to ρGMC , yielding a corresponding
decrease in tff .
< 0.01) over a wide range of density trac-
The values of ǫff,S are generally low ( ∼
ers (see below), and vary only weakly with ρS . Krumholz & Tan (2007) point out
that this suggests that turbulence is limiting star formation, although magnetic
regulation is also possible (but probably not on GMC scales, since they appear
to be magnetically supercritical – §2.3). In the turbulence-regulation picture, the
low overall efficiency of star formation on GMC scales (over their own free-fall
times) is dictated by the low fraction of gas that concentrates into structures that
are sufficiently dense to collapse before being redispersed by turbulence. The weak
variation of ǫff,S with density follows naturally if the density obeys a log-normal
distribution, which is consistent both with numerical simulations of supersonic
turbulent flows and with observations of extinction statistics (§§2.1.4,2.1.5). For
a log-normal distribution defined by equation (5), let MS be the mass with den-
sities in the range δxS surrounding xS ≡ ln(ρS /ρ̄), where ρ̄ ≡ hρiV is obtained by
dividing total GMC mass by total GMC volume. Then since the star formation
rate Ṁ∗ is independent of tracer,
√
(xS − 2µx )2 3

ǫff,S 4πµx
= exp − µx , (39)
ǫff,GMC δxS 4µx 4
where µx ≡ hln ρ/ρ̄iM is the (mass-weighted) mean within a GMC. With µx ∼ 1.5
[corresponding to mass-weighted mean density hρ/ρ̄iM = exp(2µx ) ∼ 20, typical
of GMCs] and δxS ∼ 1, ǫff,S /ǫff,GMC is between 1.4 and 3.4 for 1 < ρS /hρiM < 10;
larger values of µx keep ǫff,S ∼ ǫGMC,ff over a larger range of densities. Approxi-
mate constancy of ǫff,S over a range of densities implies the approximate relation
−1/2
MS ∝ tff ∝ ρS from equation (38). Physically, this is because the equilib-
rium fraction of mass in a GMC in structures at densities significantly above ρ̄
is equal to the ratio of the destruction time to the formation time of those struc-
tures, tdest,S /tform,S . In a turbulent medium, the destruction time is of order
the dynamical time of the structure, which decreases with increasing density and
decreasing size, whereas the formation time is of order the dynamical time of the
GMC for all structures, since the large-scale flow dominates. Note, however, that
this discussion does not apply to regions in which self-gravity is strong but turbu-
lence is weak, as occurs in low-mass pre-stellar cores. In such cores, ǫff rises by an
52 McKee & Ostriker
order of magnitude or more to ∼ 0.1. Quiescent cores have individual lifetimes of

a few tff (see §3.1.2), and net efficiency of star formation in each core ∼ 1/3 (see
§3.3.1 and §4.2.6). These structures have evolved to have internal densities (and
hence self gravity) high enough that they can resist destruction by the ambient
turbulence. In regions such as forming clusters, where self-gravity causes strong
departures from the overall log-normal density distribution in GMCs and high
gravity is offset by locally-driven turbulence, the relation (39) would also not be
expected to apply.
Even within a given density regime, there may be significant cloud-to-cloud
variations in local conditions such that tS∗ need not be a universal quantity even
for structures observed in a given tracer. Indeed, Mooney & Solomon (1988)
showed that for Milky Way GMCs with virial masses (traced in CO) MCO = 104 −
5 × 106 M⊙ and infrared luminosities LIR ∝ Ṁ∗ , the ratio tGMC,∗ ∝ MCO /LIR
varies over two orders of magnitude and is not correlated with MCO . Williams &
McKee (1997) came to a similar conclusion from their analysis of OB associations
and GMCs in the Galaxy. With a total GMC mass ≃ 109 M⊙ in the Galaxy and
a star formation rate of several M⊙ yr−1 , the mean value of tGMC,∗ ≈ 3 × 108 yr,
which translates to ǫff,GMC ∼ 0.01 if n̄H ∼ 100 cm−3 in GMCs. For dense gas
clumps in GMCs, however, it appears that conditions are more uniform, such
that there is less scatter in tS∗ for dense gas tracers. In particular, Wu et al.
(2005) show that the ratio LHCN /LIR ∝ Mdense clumps /Ṁ∗ measured in Milky
Way star-forming regions agrees with the same values measured in high-redshift
galaxies (Gao & Solomon, 2004), for which there is only one order of magnitude
scatter. Wu et al. (2005) estimate a corresponding star formation timescale of
tHCN,∗ = 8×107 yr. If the typical density of HCN-emitting gas is ∼ 105 cm−3 , the
corresponding efficiency per free-fall time is ǫff,HCN ∼ 0.002. Krumholz & Tan
(2007) apply slightly different factors to convert total HCN and IR luminosities
to gas masses and star formation rates, and obtain ǫff,HCN ∼ 0.006. These values
of ǫff are small compared to those for individual cores (∼ 0.1), which in clustered
regions (where most stars form) have densities ∼ 107 cm−3 (Ward-Thompson et
al., 2007) that are large compared to the densities traced by HCN.
In spite of the large scatter in tS∗ from one local region to another (in various
density tracers), empirical studies have shown that when averaged over large
scales, tg∗ is correlated with the global properties of gas in a galaxy. The early
studies of Schmidt (1959, 1963) sought to characterize the star formation rate as
a power law (with index > 1) in the mean gas density (both volume and surface
density); this would then translate to tg∗ (or tff /ǫff ) that varies as a negative power
of gas density. More recently, following Kennicutt (1989), a number of empirical
studies of disk galaxies have identified and explored “Kennicutt-Schmidt” (or KS)
laws of the form Σ̇∗ ∝ Σp+1 −p
g , for which tg∗ ∝ Σg . The original study of Kennicutt
investigated correlations of Σ̇∗ (R) (based on Hα) with the total Σg (R) (including
both atomic and molecular gas); he found an index p = 0.3 for Σg (R) above a
threshold level. Kennicutt (1998) studied correlations of global averages of Σ̇∗
with Σg (again combining atomic and molecular gas). For the whole sample
including normal galaxies, the centers of normal galaxies, and starbursts, the
fitted index is p = 0.4; the index is slightly larger for just normal spirals. Recent
years have seen a number of other studies of the Σg – Σ̇∗ relationship based on
annular averages in galaxies, using Hα, radio continuum, or far-IR to measure
star formation, and using either the total gas surface density or just the molecular
gas contribution from CO observations (Wong & Blitz, 2002; Murgia et al., 2002;
Boissier et al., 2003; Heyer et al., 2004; Komugi et al., 2005; Schuster et al.,
2007). Most of these studies have found p in the range 0.3 − 0.4, although larger
values of p have been obtained in some analyses that include both atomic and
molecular gas. For dense gas as traced by HCN, Gao & Solomon (2004) found a
linear relationship between the integrated star formation rate and the total mass
of dense gas, i.e. p = 0, based on a sample including both normal galaxies and
luminous/ultraluminous IR galaxies. For the same sample, the fitted SFR-gas
mass index is p = 0.7 for less-dense molecular gas observed in CO lines. All of
these fits involve (at least) an order of magnitude scatter about the mean relation.
Taken together, these results imply that the amount of dense gas available for
star formation increases nonlinearly with the global amount of lower-density gas,
but that the star formation rate in this dense gas is independent of global galactic
properties.
A second approach to characterizing global SFRs introduces the global timescale
associated with the galaxy, the orbital period torb = 2π/Ω. For grand design spi-
rals, the SFR is expected to be proportional to the rate at which gas passes
through spiral arms, since GMCs are expected (and observed) to form rapidly in
the high-surface-density gas behind the spiral shock (e.g. Roberts 1969; Kim &
Ostriker 2002, 2006; Shetty & Ostriker 2006). Shu (1973) appears to have been
the first to propose this idea, and showed that it is roughly consistent with obser-
vations of star formation in the Galaxy. Wyse (1986) proposed that GMCs, and
hence stars, are the result of atomic cloud-cloud collisions at a rate ∝ Σ2HI (Ω−Ωp),
where Ωp is the pattern speed. More generally, Wyse & Silk (1989) suggested
that the star formation rate should scale as Σ̇∗ ∝ Σg Ω. This has been confirmed
by Kennicutt (1998); the resulting two forms for the KS law are
1.4±0.15
−4 Σg
Σ̇∗ = 0.017Σg Ω ≃ (2.5±0.7)×10 M⊙ yr−1 kpc−2 . (40)
1 M⊙ pc−2
The fact that there are two forms of the star formation law implies that there
is a correlation between Σg and Ω; Krumholz & McKee (2005) found Ω ∝ Σ0.49 g
for a sample comprised of both normal and starburst galaxies (Kennicutt, 1998;
Downes & Solomon, 1998). The reason for this correlation is not known at
present, but may be related to an overall tendency for velocity dispersions to in-
crease at large surface densities (see below). The corresponding gas consumption
time is tg∗ /torb ≈ 10 with tg∗ evaluated for the entire galaxy and torb evaluated
at the outer edge of the star formation. Subsequent observations have found
tmol,∗ /torb ∼ 10 − 100 when considering the molecular gas alone (Wong & Blitz,
2002; Murgia et al., 2002).
Since most star formation is observed to take place within bound GMCs, it is
useful to introduce fGMC ≡ ΣGMC /Σg , i.e. the fraction of gas that is found in
GMCs. The surface densities must be averaged over a region containing a large
number of GMCs, since the specific star formation rate has very large fluctuations;
the average can be over a local patch of a galaxy, an azimuthal ring, or an entire
galaxy. Equation (38) implies
Σg fGMC
Σ̇∗ = ǫff,GMC . (41)
tff,GMC
This form of the star formation law is particularly useful if most of the gas is in
GMCs, fGMC ≃ 1. Since the gas density in the midplane ρg ∝ Ω2 /GQ2 in terms
54 McKee & Ostriker
1/2 1/2
of the Toomre Q parameter, and since t−1 ff,GMC ∝ ρGMC ∝ ρg , it follows that
Σ̇∗ ∝ ǫff,GMC Σg fGMC /(Qtorb ) (Krumholz & McKee, 2005; see below), which is
similar to the “orbital time” form of the KS law.
An alternative expression for the SFR follows by noting that if GMCs form
from diffuse gas at a rate Mdiffuse /tdiffuse and are destroyed by star formation at
a rate MGMC /tGMC , then fGMC = tGMC /tlc , where tlc ≡ tdiffuse + tGMC is the
life-cycle time for gas in the galaxy. The mean efficiency of star formation in
any GMC over its lifetime tGMC is ǫGMC = ǫff,GMC (tGMC /tff,GMC ); in the Milky
Way, the observed average value of ǫGMC is about 0.05 (e.g., Williams & McKee,
1997), corresponding to tGMC /tff,GMC ≈ 5. The star formation rate is then
Σg
Σ̇∗ = ǫGMC (42)
tlc
This equation leads to a simple interpretation of the empirical result Σ̇∗ ∝ Σg Ω
for grand design spirals. In this situation the mean lifecycle time of the gas
should be equal to the timescale between successive encounters with spiral arms,
tlc = (2π/m)(Ω − Ωp )−1 for an m-armed spiral. If ǫGMC varies only modestly
with radius, then well inside corotation (which is most of the star-forming disk)
the overall star formation rate should obey Σ̇∗ ∝ Σg Ω. More generally, con-
sider an arbitrary disk galaxy in which the gas is primarily diffuse, so that the
GMC formation time tdiffuse is much greater than the GMC destruction time
(or lifetime) tGMC , and as a result the life-cycle time tlc ≃ tdiffuse . The char-
acteristic timescale tdiffuse for formation of self-gravitating structures in a disk
with surface density Σg is the two-dimensional Jeans time tJ,2D = ceff /(GΣg )
(eq. 35). (Actual GMC formation timescales differ from tJ,2D due to rotation
and disk-thickness effects – see references in §3.2.1). Using the definition of the
Toomre Q parameter (eq. 32), torb = (tJ,2D /Q)(2κ/Ω), so that from equation
(42), Σ̇∗ ∼ 3ǫGMC Σg (Qtorb )−1 . Thus, both the diffuse-dominated and GMC-
dominated cases yield Σ̇∗ ∝ Σg /(Qtorb ), assuming that the efficiency factors
are comparable in different regions of a galaxy and from one galaxy to another.
Since star formation tends to deplete the gas in any region until Q is near the
critical value Qcrit ≃ 1.5 (theory: Quirk, 1972; observation: Martin & Kenni-
cutt, 2001; Wong & Blitz, 2002; Murgia et al., 2002; Boissier et al., 2003), this
yields the “orbital time” form of the KS law (including the normalization) when
ǫGMC ≈ 0.05. GMC formation on a timescale ∼ tJ,2D , implying a star formation
rate Σ̇∗ ∝ Σ2g /ceff if ǫGMC is weakly-varying, also yields the other form of the KS
law if the effective velocity dispersion increases with surface density according to
ceff ∝ Σg1−p . A significant increase in the gas velocity dispersion at small radii,
where Σg is generally larger, has been noted in several galaxies (Kenney, Carl-
strom, & Young, 1993; Sakamoto, 1996; Walsh et al., 2002; Lundgren et al., 2004;
Schuster et al., 2007), although there is no quantitative theory for this increase.
A quantitative theory for the galactic star formation rate must determine the
star formation efficiency (e.g., ǫff,GMC or ǫGMC ) as well as the corresponding over-
all rate. (An exception is the theory of Silk, 1997, who notes that the porosity of
hot gas in a galaxy is determined by the SFR; the SFR can thus be expressed in
terms of the porosity, but this remains uncertain.) Tan (2000) proposed that the
overall star formation rate is determined by cloud-cloud collisions, but he set the
efficiency based on comparison with observations. Elmegreen (2002, 2003) sug-
gested that the star formation rate per unit volume is ρ̇∗ ≃ ǫcore fcore (Gρcore )1/2 ρ,
where fcore is the fraction of gas in dense cores; the value of this was set by com-
parison with observation. Simulations by Kravtsov (2003), by Li, Mac Low, &
Klessen (2005a,b, 2006), and by Tasker & Bryan (2006) show that the fraction of
high-density gas scales as Σ1.4
g , but the definition of “high-density” is arbitrary
and the dependence of the SFR on this definition is not known.
A theory for the star formation efficiency per free-fall time has been given by
Krumholz & McKee (2005); for galaxies in which fGMC ≃ 1, this is proposed
as a complete theory of the KS law. The first three assumptions underlying
the theory have been discussed above: they assume that star formation occurs
primarily in GMCs, so that the star formation rate is described by equation (41),
that the density PDF in GMCs is log normal, as inferred from simulations of
turbulence in gas that is approximately isothermal (§2.1.4), and that the IMF
has the standard form. The final assumption is that low-mass stars form in all
gas dense enough that the sonic length in the surrounding turbulent gas exceeds
the Jeans length (λJ < ℓs ) (Padoan, 1995), with an efficiency ǫcore ∼ 1/2 from the
theoretical estimate of Matzner & McKee (2000). The condition that λJ < ℓs
ensures that critical Bonnor-Ebert spheres are not torn apart by turbulence;
the corresponding critical density implies that the thermal pressure in the cores
matches the turbulent pressure in the environment, ρcore /ρ̄ ≃ M2 . An important
part of this last assumption is that the regions that are dense enough to satisfy
λJ < ℓs have masses large enough to collapse. The normalization for the star
formation rate is based on the simulations of Vázquez-Semadeni, Ballesteros-
Paredes, & Klessen (2003). These assumptions lead to a star formation efficiency
ǫff,GMC ≃ 0.017α−0.68
vir (M/100)−0.32 . Since the virial parameter in GMCs is of
order unity and the Mach numbers are somewhat smaller than 100 in regions
where they have been observed (and ∼ < a few 100 even in unresolved starbursts),
this corresponds to a typical ǫff,GMC ∼ 0.02. For galaxies in which the gas is not
fully molecular, Krumholz and McKee adopt the phenomenological result for
fGMC obtained by Blitz & Rosolowsky (2006). They show that the resulting star
formation rate agrees well with Kennicutt’s observed relations (eq. 40).
Finally, we remark that controversy continues to surround the question of what
physical process defines the observed outer-disk thresholds Rth for active star
formation. Kennicutt (1989) and Martin & Kennicutt (2001) argue that disk
thresholds are set by gravitational stability considerations in shearing, rotating
disks, and find a mean value of Q ≈ 1.4 when they adopt a constant value
ceff = 6 km s−1 for their sample. Numerical simulations of isothermal gas disks,
including both disk thickness effects and the gravity from an active stellar disk,
quantitatively support this conclusion (Li, Mac Low, & Klessen, 2005a; Kim &
Ostriker, 2007). On the other hand, Schaye (2004), building on the suggestion of
Elmegreen & Parravano (1994), argues that star formation thresholds are defined
by the condition that the pressure is high enough that a cold component of the
atomic ISM can exist. This transition point depends on the UV intensity and
metallicity (e.g., Wolfire et al. , 2003), but typically corresponds to threshold
surface density ∼ 3 − 10 M⊙ pc−2 . Schaye essentially reverses the argument for
a Q threshold: he argues that when a significant fraction of the ISM becomes
cold, Q drops significantly and gravitational instability ensues. An advantage
of this proposal is that it can naturally account for the isolated patches of star
formation that occur outside Rth (Ferguson et al., 1998; Boissier et al., 2006),
since star formation occurs wherever the pressure of the gas exceeds the critical
value. However, while the model gives a necessary condition for star formation,
56 McKee & Ostriker
it does not give a sufficient condition: some of the galaxies in the Martin &
Kennicutt (2001) sample have Rth inside the radius at which the gas becomes
molecular, which in turn is inside the radius at which cold atomic gas first appears
(see also de Blok & Walter, 2006, who find evidence of a cold atomic component
even in non-star-forming regions). In these cases, it is possible that MRI-driven
turbulence in the outer disk maintains the effective Q greater than the critical
value even when some of the gas is cold (Piontek & Ostriker, 2007).
4 MICROPHYSICS OF STAR FORMATION
4.1 Low-Mass Star Formation

Star formation is traditionally divided into two parts: Low-mass stars form in
a time short compared to the Kelvin-Helmholz time, tKH = Gm2∗ /RL, whereas
high-mass stars form in a time & tKH (Kahn, 1974). This distinction between
low-mass and high-mass protostars is not fully satisfactory, however, since for a
sufficiently high accretion rate any protostar would be classified as “low-mass.”
We somewhat arbitrarily divide low and high-mass stars at a mass of 8 M⊙ .
Protostars that will form stars with masses significantly below this value have
luminosities dominated by accretion, and they form from cores that have masses
of order the thermal Jeans mass. Protostars above this mass have luminosities
that are dominated by nuclear burning unless the accretion rate is very high, and
if they form from molecular cores, those cores are significantly above the thermal
Jeans mass. Low-mass stars undergo extensive pre-main sequence evolution in
the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, from the point on the “birthline,” where they
cease accreting and are revealed (Stahler, 1983; see also Larson, 1972), to the
main sequence. Here we briefly review the current understanding of how such
stars form.
4.1.1 Theory of core collapse and protostellar infall As dis-
cussed above, low-mass stars appear to form from gravitationally bound cores.
The time scale for the collapse of these cores determines both the time scale
for the formation of a star and the accretion luminosity. Note that the rate of
infall onto the star-disk system, ṁin , can differ from the rate of accretion onto
the protostar, ṁ∗ , since some of the infalling gas can be temporarily stored in
the disk. The collapse of such cores and the growth of the resulting protostars
has been reviewed by Larson (2003), and we draw on this work here. At the
outset of theoretical studies of star formation, it was realized that isothermal
cores undergoing gravitational collapse become very centrally concentrated, with
a density profile that becomes approximately ρ ∝ r −2 (Bodenheimer & Sweigart,
1968; Larson, 1969). Prior to the formation of the protostar, there is a central,
thermally supported region of size r ≃ λJ . Collapse of a marginally unstable core
begins near the outer radius. The r −2 density gradient is created as the wave of
collapse propagates inward, leaving every scale marginally unstable as the col-
lapse accelerates (cf. Larson, 2003). That is, since λJ ∼ cs /(Gρ)1/2 (eq. 20), a
sphere that is marginally unstable at each scale, r ∼ λJ , will have ρ ∼ c2s /(Gr 2 )
when the protostar is first formed; the corresponding infall rate is
MG c3 c3s
ṁin ∼ = s ⇒ ṁin = φin , (43)
tG G G
where the gravitational mass and radius are defined in equation (13) and φin is a
numerical factor that is typically & 1. (When the effect of protostellar outflows
is included, the infall rate is reduced by a factor ǫcore < 1.) Although this
result was first derived for an isothermal sphere, Stahler, Shu, & Taam (1980)
emphasize that it should apply approximately to the collapse of any cloud that is
initially in approximate hydrostatic equilibrium, with c2s → c2eff = c2s + vA 2 + v2
turb
including the effects of magnetic fields and turbulence as well as thermal pressure;
Shu, Adams, & Lizano (1987) suggest that ceff . 2cs , however. This infall rate
explicitly depends only on the sound speed, but it implicitly depends on the
density of the core: since the core was assumed to be initially in hydrostatic
equilibrium, equation (43) is equivalent to ṁin ∼ Mcore /tG ∝ Mcore ρ1/2 .
There are two limiting cases for the gravitational collapse of an isothermal
sphere. In the first case, originally considered by Larson (1969) and Penston
(1969) and extended by Hunter (1977), one begins with a static cloud of constant
density and follows the formation of the r −2 density profile. At the time when
the protostar first forms (i.e., when the central density reaches infinity in this
idealized calculation), the collapse is highly dynamic, with an infall velocity of
3.3cs . The infall rate onto the star is large, rapidly increasing from ṁin = 29c3s /G
at the moment of protostar formation to ṁin = 47c3s /G. In the physically unreal-
istic case of an infinite, uniform medium, the accretion rate would remain at this
high value; in practice, the accretion rate rapidly declines after the formation of
a point mass (see below). In the opposite case, considered by Shu (1977), one
assumes that the evolution to the r −2 density profile is quasi-static (most likely
due to the effects of magnetic fields—see below), so that the infall velocities are
negligible at the moment of protostar formation. The resulting initial configu-
ration is the singular isothermal sphere (SIS), which is an unstable hydrostatic
equilibrium. The collapse is initiated at the center, and the point at which the
gas begins to fall inward propagates outward at the sound speed (the “expansion
wave”): Rew = cs t. This solution is therefore termed an “inside-out” collapse.
For r ≥ Rew , the density is that of a SIS, ρ = c2s /(2πGr 2 ); for r < Rew , the
gas accelerates until it reaches free fall, with v = −(2Gm∗ /r)1/2 and ρ0 ∝ r −3/2 .
The generalized post-core-formation solutions of Hunter (1977) share the same
density and velocity scalings at small radii. The infall rate for Shu’s expansion
wave solution is constant in time,
ṁin = 0.975c3s /G = 1.54 × 10−6 (T /10 K)3/2 M⊙ yr−1 . (44)
The total mass inside the expansion wave at time t is 2ṁin t, so that about half
this mass is in the protostar (i.e., few ≡ m∗ /mew ≃ 1/2). Larson (2003) describes
the Larson-Penston-Hunter (LPH) and Shu solutions as “fast” and “slow” col-
lapse, respectively, and suggests that reality is somewhere in between. A general
discussion of the family of self-similar, isothermal collapse solutions has been
given by Whitworth & Summers (1985).
Observations suggest that the cores that form low-mass stars initially have
density profiles that approximate those of Bonnor-Ebert spheres (§3.1). Foster &
Chevalier (1993) used time-dependent simulations to follow the collapse of such
spheres under the assumption that support is by thermal pressure alone. They
found that the collapse of the innermost, nearly uniform, part of a critical Bonnor-
Ebert sphere (i.e., one with a center-to-edge density contrast of 14.1) approaches,
but does not reach, the Larson-Penston (LP) solution prior to and at the time of
core formation. Shortly thereafter, the infall rate begins to decline; there is no
58 McKee & Ostriker
phase of constant infall for a critical Bonnor-Ebert sphere. On the other hand,
a sphere that is initially in an unstable equilibrium with a larger center-to-edge
density contrast has an extended (outer) region in which the density scales as
r −2 . In this case the infall rate starts off as in the critical Bonnor-Ebert case
and then declines to the constant value for an SIS. The infall rate eventually
decreases below the SIS value when a rarefaction wave from the boundary of the
cloud reaches the origin (see Vorobyov & Basu, 2005a). Numerical simulations of
gravitational collapse in an unmagnetized, turbulent medium show that the initial
spike and subsequent decline of the infall rate are typical (Schmeja & Klessen,
2004).
Most of the theoretical work (except for simulations) on low-mass star for-
mation has neglected the role of turbulence in the core. This is generally a
valid approximation for low-mass cores, but it becomes increasingly inaccurate
as the core mass increases. When turbulence is included, it is generally in the
microturbulent approximation. Bonazzola et al. (1987, 1992) treated the tur-
bulent pressure as being scale-dependent, and suggested that turbulence could
stabilize GMCs while allowing smaller scales to undergo gravitational collapse.
Lizano & Shu (1989) introduced a phenomenological model for turbulence, a lo-
gotropic equation of state (§2.2), to treat the contraction of the core. Myers &
Fuller (1992) and Caselli & Myers (1995) modeled cores that are supported in
part by turbulent motions with a density distribution that is the sum of an r −2
power law for a thermal core and a flatter power law for the turbulent envelope.
Turbulent cores also can be approximately modeled as polytropes with γp < 1
(§2.2), and when cores collapse, the adiabatic index γ can exceed unity (McKee
& Zweibel, 1995; Vázquez-Semadeni, Canto, & Lizano, 1998). Ogino, Tomisaka,
& Nakamura (1999) generalized the Foster & Chevalier (1993) calculation and
found that both the peak infall rate and the rate of decline of the infall rate are
increased for γ = γp > 1. McLaughlin & Pudritz (1997) generalized the Shu solu-
tion to singular polytropic and singular logatropic spheres. They showed that the
expansion wave accelerates in time as Rew ∝ t2−γp and the infall rate increases
as ṁin ∝ t3(1−γp ) (logatropes correspond to γp → 0). The ratio of the mass in
the protostar to that engulfed by the expansion wave is few ≃ 1/2, 1/6, 1/33 for
γp = 1, 2/3 and a logatrope, respectively. The infall rate for a singular poly-
tropic sphere can also be expressed as ṁin = φ∗ m∗ /tff , where tff is the free-fall
time measured at the initial density of the gas just accreting onto the star and
φ∗ ≃ 1.62 − 0.96/(2 − γp ) (McKee & Tan, 2002; this is valid for 0 < γp < 1.2).
Inside-out collapse solutions for clouds that are initially contracting and that
have γ 6= γp have been developed by Fatuzzo, Adams, & Myers (2004). For
clouds that are supported in part by turbulence, the decay of the turbulence can
initiate the collapse of the core (Myers & Lazarian, 1998).
In the innermost regions of the collapsing core, the opacity eventually be-
comes large enough that the gas switches from approximately isothermal behav-
ior to adiabatic behavior. The initial calculations were carried out by Larson
(1969), and recent calculations include those by Masunaga, Miyama, & Inutsuka
(1998), Masunaga & Inutsuka (2000), and Wuchterl & Tscharnuter (2003); all
assume spherical symmetry. The gas begins to become adiabatic at a density
ρ ∼ 10−13 g cm−3 . The “first core” forms when the gas becomes hot enough to
stop the collapse, and an accretion shock forms at a radius ∼ 5 AU and with an
enclosed mass ∼ 0.05 M⊙ . Once the gas is hot enough to dissociate the molecular
hydrogen, a second collapse ensues and the protostar is formed. When opacity
effects are included, the maximum infall rate is limited to about 13c3s /G (Larson,
2003), and the average infall rate over the time required to assemble 80% of the
final stellar mass is about 1.5-3 times the SIS value (Wuchterl & Tscharnuter,
2003).
Effects of Rotation The two classical problems of star formation are the
angular momentum problem and the magnetic flux problem: a star has far less
angular momentum and magnetic flux than an equivalent mass in the interstellar
medium. Magnetic fields effectively remove angular momentum so long as the
contraction of the core is sub-Alfvénic and the neutral and ionized components
of the infalling gas are reasonably well coupled (e.g., Mestel, 1985; Mouschovias,
1987). Once either of these conditions breaks down, the gas will collapse with
(near-)constant specific angular momentum, j = ̟vφ , where ̟ is the cylindrical
radius, provided the transport of angular momentum by turbulence and gravita-
tional torques is unimportant. For collapse at constant j, a disk will form with a
radius
(Rd vKep )2 j2 Ω20 ̟04
Rd = 2 = 2 = = 3̟0 βrot (̟0 ), (45)
Rd vKep Rd vKep Gm∗d
where vKep = (Gm∗d /Rd )1/2 is the Keplerian velocity, m∗d is the mass of the
star and disk (assumed to be equal to the initial mass M [̟0 ]), βrot is the rota-
tional energy parameter defined in equation (30), and ̟0 and Ω0 are the initial
cylindrical radius and angular velocity. In the collapse to a disk, the radius
shrinks by a factor 3βrot . Note that if the rotational velocity is proportional to
the velocity dispersion, as might be expected for a cloud supported by turbulent
motions (Burkert & Bodenheimer, 2000), then βrot (̟0 ) is constant (Goodman
et al., 1993), and the disk radius is a fixed fraction of the initial radius. On
the other hand, clouds supported primarily by thermal pressure are generally as-
sumed to be in uniform rotation. Recall that Goodman et al. (1993) found that
cores typically have βrot (Rcore ) ∼ 0.02.
As in the non-rotating case, two limits for rotating collapse have received the
greatest attention. These studies have generally assumed isothermality and have
focused on inviscid, axisymmetric flow, although the latter conditions are likely
to be violated in real disks, as discussed in §4.2 below. If the core initially has
constant density and is rotating slowly, then it collapses to a disk that evolves
to a configuration with a singular surface density profile, Σ ∝ ̟ −1 (Norman,
Wilson, & Barton, 1980; Narita, Hayashi, & Miyama, 1984). The self-similar
solution for the collapse of a rotating disk has been obtained by Saigo & Hanawa
(1998), who pointed out that this solution is the analog of the Larson-Penston-
Hunter (LPH) solution for non-rotating collapse (i.e., it includes the time after the
formation of the central singularity in Σ). A quasi-equilibrium disk with a radius
Rd ≃ j 2 /Gm∗d (eq. 45) grows after formation of the central singularity. Since
both M (̟) and j scale as ̟2 in the inner part of the initial spherical cloud, it
follows that j ∝ M (̟0 ). Angular momentum is conserved during disk formation,
so when a mass M (̟0 ) = m∗d has collapsed into the disk, Rd ∝ j 2 /m∗d ∝ m∗d ,
which grows linearly in time in the isothermal case. Note also that since Σ ∝ ̟−1
in the disk, it follows that after disk formation M and therefore j ∝ ̟; as a
result, the rotational velocity in the disk is constant, independent of ̟. The
infall rate into the central disk is about (3 − 11)c3s /G, depending on the angular
momentum; this is significantly less than that for the non-rotating LPH solution
60 McKee & Ostriker
(Saigo & Hanawa, 1998). In this solution the gas outside the equilbrium disk is
dynamically contracting and is assumed to be itself in a thin disk. Numerical
calculations indicate that relaxation of the thin disk approximation increases the
accretion rate by about a factor 2 for the case they considered.
Alternatively, if the core settles into a centrally concentrated, spherical, quasi-
equilibrium state prior to collapse, a slow, inside-out collapse ensues. The density
distribution of the supersonically infalling gas in the vicinity of the disk has
been determined by Ulrich (1976) and by Cassen & Moosman (1981) under the
assumptions that the mass is dominated by the central protostar and that the gas
is spherically symmetric far from the protostar. The outer radius of the disk is
given by equation (45), but the disk is far from Keplerian—there is a large inward
velocity that leads to a dynamically contracting outer disk and quasi-equilibrium
inner disk (Stahler et al., 1994). This solution for the inner part of the infall can
be joined smoothly to the solution for the collapse of an SIS (Terebey, Shu, &
Cassen, 1984). More generally, if the cloud initially has a power-law density profile
(ρ ∝ r −kρ ) with kρ > 1, then it is straightforward to show that, for Ω0 = const,
(k +1)/(3−kρ )
the disk radius is Rd ∝ m∗dρ . For the collapse of a slowly rotating SIS
(kρ = 2), this equation implies that the disk radius varies as Rd ∝ m3∗d ∝ t3
(Cassen & Moosman, 1981). This rapid increase in disk radius with time is based
on the assumption that the cloud can evolve to a rigidly rotating SIS. Subsequent
work (described below) shows that even when magnetic fields are included, this
condition is difficult to realize, and Rd tends to increase only linearly with time.
Effects of Magnetic Fields Poloidal magnetic fields prevent gravitational

collapse when they are sufficiently strong (subcritical cores), and they inhibit
contraction otherwise (supercritical cores), as discussed in §2.2. Magnetic ten-
sion acts to dilute the force of gravity. In nonrotating disks, this effect can be
modeled approximately by adopting an effective gravitational constant (Basu,
1997; Nakamura & Hanawa, 1997; Shu & Li, 1997), Geff = (1 − µ−2 Φ )G, where
µΦ ≡ M/MΦ (§2.2) is assumed to be independent of r and must be greater than
unity for gravitationally bound clouds; this equation is exact if the disk is also
thin (Shu & Li, 1997). As a result, the mass of a thin, nonrotating isothermal,
magnetically supercritical disk in equilibrium is M (r) = [1/(1 − µ−2 2
Φ )]2cs r/G (Li
& Shu, 1996), which can be much larger than in the absence of magnetic support.
If such a disk is initially in static equilibrium (which is difficult to arrange), the
infall rate resulting from an inside-out collapse has φin = 1/(1 − µ−2 Φ ) in equation
(43) to within about 5% (Li & Shu, 1997; Allen, Shu, & Li, 2003).
Mouschovias and his students have carried out an extensive set of calculations
of the evolution of a magnetized disk assuming that the disk is thin and axisym-
metric, which reduces the calculation to one spatial dimension. They followed
the evolution from a subcritical initial state to supercritical collapse under the
influence of ambipolar diffusion (Fiedler & Mouschovias, 1993), including the ef-
fects of charged grains (Ciolek & Mouschovias, 1994, 1996, 1998) and rotation
(Basu & Mouschovias, 1994, 1995a,b). In these calculations, the magnetic field
has a characteristic hour-glass shape in which the field is normal to the disk
and flares above and below it; observations that are consistent with this geom-
etry have been obtained recently at a resolution of several hundred AU (Girart,
Rao, & Marrone, 2006). Galli & Shu (1993a,b) show that even if the magne-
tized core began with a spherical shape, it would collapse to a disk, which they
term a “pseudodisk” since it is not rotationally supported. The calculations of

Mouschovias and his students cited above typically began in a very subcritical
state, with µΦ ≃ 0.25, and stopped when the central density reached 109.5 cm−3 ,
which is about the point at which the central regions are expected to become
opaque and non-isothermal. They found that thermal pressure exerts an out-
ward force ≃ 30% of that due to gravity, whereas centrifugal accelerations are
negligible in this phase of evolution. The central part of the core undergoes an
extended phase of evolution until it becomes supercritical, at which point the
contraction accelerates and mass-to-flux ratio increases more slowly.
Basu (1997) has given a semi-analytic treatment of these results. He showed
that the surface density profile in the inner core is Σ(r, t) ≃ Σc (t)/[1 + (r/R)2 ]1/2 ,
where Σc is the central surface density and R(t) = 2c2s /GΣc (t) is the radius
of the region in which thermal pressure is sufficiently strong to maintain an
approximately constant density (Narita, Hayashi, & Miyama, 1984 found a similar
result for rotating collapse without a magnetic field). The supercritical core
has a radius Rcrit obtained by setting the central surface density equal to twice
the critical value [Σc = µΦ B0 /(2πG1/2 ) with µφ = 2, where B0 is the initial
field strength in the core]. He showed that the slow increase in the mass-to-flux
ratio, µΦ ∝ Σ0.05 , results in a significant reduction in magnetic support at high
densities. The density profile in the inner part of the disk (r ≪ Rcrit ) has kρ ≃ 2,
but the increasing relative importance of magnetic forces in the outer regions
cause it to flatten out so that the mean value in the entire core is kρ ≃ 1.6. Basu
found that the rotational velocity is independent of r, just as Saigo & Hanawa
(1998) did for the non-magnetic case. Extending the problem to include the
time after protostar formation, Contopoulos, Ciolek, & Königl (1998) obtained a
similarity solution to the non-rotating collapse problem with ambipolar diffusion
and found an infall rate ṁin = 5.9c3s /G at the time of protostar formation. Two-
dimensional numerical calculations have confirmed this result and have shown
that the infall rate subsequently drops by somewhat less than a factor 2 (Ciolek
& Königl, 1998).
Shu, Li, & Allen (2004) have considered very different initial conditions, in
which a uniform field threads a singular isothermal sphere. Since the flux-to-mass
ratio is zero at the origin and increases outward, magnetic effects are negligible
at the center and become important only at a characteristic length scale Rch =
πc2s /G1/2 B, corresponding to the condition that MG ∼ MΦ (a similar length scale
arises in studies of collapse with ambipolar diffusion, as may be inferred from Basu
& Mouschovias, 1995b). They follow the collapse under the assumption that the
flux is frozen to the gas and find that the infall rate declines after the expansion
wave reaches Rch ; this is analogous to the result of Ciolek & Mouschovias (1995),
who found a similar result for the case of collapse with ambipolar diffusion when
the expansion wave reached a point at which the ambipolar diffusion was inhibited
by photoionization. The initial conditions assumed by Shu, Li, & Allen (2004)
lead to a poloidal field that decreases inward, whereas calculations that start
from non-singular initial conditions and include ambipolar diffusion find that the
poloidal field strongly increases inward.
A full similarity solution for the evolution of the collapsing core after it has
fallen into a thin disk and a protostar has formed at the center, including rotation,
magnetic fields and ambipolar diffusion, has been obtained by Krasnopolsky &
Königl (2002). They assumed that the gas is in a thin disk with a constant rota-
tional velocity (see above); how this assumption would be affected by turbulence,
62 McKee & Ostriker
which would thicken the disk and transport angular momentum, is unclear. The
infalling gas goes through two shocks, a C-shock (which has a structure dominated
by ambipolar diffusion—e.g., Draine & McKee, 1993) and a shock at the outer
edge of the centrifugally supported disk. When the protostar reaches 1M⊙ , the C-
shock is at about 103 AU, and the centrifugal shock is at about 102 AU, consistent
with data on T Tauri systems (see §4.2.1 below). Within the self-similar frame-
work, they find that magnetic braking can be adequate to maintain accretion
onto the central protostar; in this case there would be no need for internal disk
stresses to drive accretion. The infall rate in their fiducial case is 4.7c3s /G; for a
gas at 10 K, this corresponds to a star formation time tsf = 1.3 × 105 (m∗ /M⊙ ) yr.
Their solution does not include an outflow, but they show how one might be in-
cluded and estimate that this could reduce the accretion rate by a factor . 3.
In sum, based on the theoretical work to date, it is clear that the infall rate is
proportional to c3eff /G, where ceff is an effective sound speed (Stahler, Shu, &
Taam, 1980), but the value of the coefficient and its time dependence have yet
to be determined in realistic cases.
The magnetic flux problem in star formation is that stars have very large
values of the mass-to-flux ratio (µΦ ∼ 104 − 105 in magnetic stars, ∼ 108 in the
Sun—Nakano, 1983), whereas they form from gas with µΦ ∼ 1. This problem
does not have an adequate solution yet, but it appears that it must be resolved
in part on scales . 1000 AU and in part on smaller (∼ AU) scales. Detailed
calculations of the ionization state of the infalling and accreting gas show that the
ionization becomes low enough that the field decouples from the gas at densities
of order 1010.5 − 1011.5 cm−3 (Nishi, Nakano, & Umebayashi, 1991; Desch &
Mouschovias, 2001; Nakano, Nishi, & Umebayashi, 2002); decoupling occurs at
a somewhat lower density after the formation of the central protostar, due to
the stronger gravitational force (Ciolek & Königl, 1998). Li & McKee (1996)
showed that once the field decouples from the gas, magnetic flux accumulates in
the accretion disk as the gas flows through the field and onto the protostar. The
pressure associated with this field is strong enough to drive a C-shock (which has
a structure dominated by ambipolar diffusion) into the infalling gas. The radius
of the shock is predicted to be several thousand AU at the end of the infall phase
of a 1 M⊙ star; inside the shock, the field is approximately uniform (except close
to the star) and the gas settles into an infalling, dense disk that they identified
with the “outer disk” observed in HL Tau (Hayashi, Ohashi, & Miyama, 1993).
These results have been confirmed and improved upon by Contopoulos, Ciolek,
& Königl (1998), Ciolek & Königl (1998) and Krasnopolsky & Königl (2002).
Tassis & Mouschovias (2005) have carried out 2D axisymmetric calculations with
careful attention to the evolution of the ionization and find that the location of
the shock oscillates, leading to fluctuations in the accretion rate; it is important
to determine if this effect persists in a full 3D simulation. Tassis & Mouschovias
(2007a,b,c) find that the magnetic field in the central region (r . 10 AU) is
about 0.1 G at the end of their calculation, when the central star has a mass
∼ 0.01M⊙ ; this is at the low end of the fields inferred in the early solar nebula
from meteorites, which are in the range 0.1 − 10 G (Morfill, Spruit, & Levy,
1993). They show that ohmic dissipation becomes as important as ambipolar
diffusion at densities & 1012.5 cm−3 , but it does not affect the total magnetic
flux. However, even though these processes significantly reduce the field within
a few AU of the protostar, they are not sufficient to reduce the magnetic flux in
the protostar to the observed value (Nakano & Umebayashi, 1986; Li & McKee,
1996; Li, 1998; Ciolek & Königl, 1998; Tassis & Mouschovias, 2005). It is possible
that turbulent diffusion (Li & McKee, 1996) or magnetic reconnection (Mestel
& Strittmatter, 1967; Galli & Shu, 1993b) plays a role in further reducing the
magnetic flux. Reconnection alters the topology of the field and can displace
the region in which the flux crosses the forming or accreting disk. However,
reconnection cannot actually destroy flux (a common misconception), since at
sufficient distance from the protostar the plasma is a good conductor and the
total flux inside this conductor must be conserved. At the present time, the
solution to the magnetic flux problem remains incomplete.
As remarked above (§4.1.1), magnetic fields are thought to play a critical role in
solving the the classical angular momentum problem by means of magnetic brak-
ing (Mestel, 1985; Mouschovias, 1987). Indeed, magnetic braking when the field
is frozen to the matter is so effective that Allen, Li, & Shu (2003) and Galli et al.
(2006) have argued that magnetic reconnection is required to reduce the field and
therefore the braking enough that a Keplerian disk can form. The infall solution
of Krasnopolsky & Königl (2002), which includes ambipolar diffusion, and the nu-
merical simulations of Hujeirat et al. (2000), which include both turbulence and
ambipolar diffusion, suggest that Keplerian disks can form without reconnection,
but nonetheless indicate that predicting the evolution of the specific angular mo-
mentum of the infalling gas is a complex problem. However, it is not clear that
any of these theoretical models are consistent with the observations of Ohashi
et al. (1997), which show that the specific angular momentum in gas associated
with several protostars in Taurus is constant for 10−3 pc < r < 0.03 pc.
Numerical simulations, as opposed to numerical integration of the underlying
partial differential equations, are required to study core collapse in 2D or 3D
without additional assumptions (such as self-similarity or a thin-disk condition).
A critical review of numerical simulations of low-mass star formation is given
by Klein et al. (2007). To date, such simulations have not included ambipolar
diffusion, nor have they simultaneously included radiative transfer and magnetic
fields; most simulations have also stopped prior to the formation of the protostar.
A prediction of these simulations is that a slow (v ∼ cs ∼ 0.2 km s−1 ) outflow
should occur at large radii (∼ 103 AU; Tomisaka, 1998, 2002; Banerjee & Pudritz,
2006). These authors suggest that this outflow is related to the observed bipolar
outflows, but Allen, Li, & Shu (2003) disagree. In any case, this large scale
outflow could be important in setting the outer boundary conditions for the jets
and higher-velocity outflows that are observed (see §§4.2.4, 4.2.5).
4.1.2 Bondi-Hoyle Accretion Once a protostar star has formed by grav-
itational collapse of a core, it can continue to grow by gravitational accretion from
the ambient medium. Most treatments of this process do not distinguish between
the gas that accretes directly onto the star and the gas that first falls onto the
disk. Hoyle & Lyttleton (1939) first developed the theory of accretion by a mov-
ing point mass, and Bondi (1952) extended the theory to the case in which the
star is at rest in a medium of finite temperature. Today, gravitational accretion
by a stationary object is generally referred to as Bondi accretion, whereas that
by a moving object is referred to as Bondi-Hoyle accretion. If the density and
sound speed far from the star are ρ and cs , respectively, and the star is moving
at a velocity v0 = M0 cs through the ambient medium, then the characteristic
64 McKee & Ostriker
radius from which the star accretes is

Gm∗
RBH = . (46)
(1 + M20 )c2s
The accretion rate is
2 4πφBH ρG2 m2∗

ṀBH = 4πφBH RBH ρcs (1 + M20 )1/2 = , (47)
(1 + M20 )3/2 c3s
where φBH is a number of order unity that fluctuates somewhat due to instabilities
in the flow (Ruffert & Arnett, 1994).
There are a number of assumptions that go into this result: (1) The mass inside
RBH is dominated by the mass of the star—i.e., the self-gravity of the accreting
gas is negligible. One can show that
m∗ 2

M (RBH ) 5.85
= , (48)
m∗ (1 + M20 )3 MBE
so that this condition is equivalent to requiring that the stellar mass be small
compared to the Bonnor-Ebert mass (eq. 15) in the ambient medium (for M0 .
1). (2) The tidal gravitational field is negligible; when it is not, RBH is replaced
by the tidal radius (Bonnell et al., 2001a). (3) The magnetic field is negligible.
Based on dimensional scalings, a rough approximation for the effect of a magnetic
field on the accretion rate would be to make the replacement v0 → (v02 + vA 2 )1/2 .
(4) The ambient gas is moving at a uniform velocity. In fact, gas in molecular
clouds is generally supersonically turbulent, so that an accreting star experiences
large fluctuations in both the density and velocity of the accreting material.
Krumholz, McKee, & Klein (2006) showed that the mean accretion rate in a
turbulent medium is given by equation (47) with ρ equal to the mean density,
M0 replaced by Mturb , and φBH ≃ 3.5 ln(0.70Mturb ), provided that the 3D Mach
number Mturb of the turbulence is large compared to M0 and compared to unity
(they verified this result for M0 = 0 and 3 ≤ Mturb ≤ 10). This result was
derived from simulations of isothermal gas, but it should be approximately valid
for other equations of state also. The median accretion rate is significantly less
than the mean, however.
The dominant paradigm for star formation is gravitational collapse, but an
alternative is that stars (or at least relatively massive stars) are formed primarily
by the capture and subsequent accretion of matter that is initially unbound to
the star (Zinnecker, 1982; Bonnell et al., 1997). Since protostars compete for gas
from a common reservoir, this process is termed “competitive accretion.” The
simulations of Bonnell et al. (1997) show that a few of the fragments gain most
of the mass; these are the ones that reside primarily in the central regions of the
clump and have the highest accretion rates. Since gravitational accretion scales
as m2∗ , initial differences in protostellar masses are amplified. This process has
the potential of producing the initial mass function, and it also naturally leads to
massive stars being centrally concentrated in clusters, as observed (Bonnell et al.,
2001b). A key issue for competitive accretion is, what is the level of turbulence
in the ambient medium? There is general agreement that competitive accretion
is ineffective if the medium has turbulent energy comparable to gravitational en-
ergy, with αvir order unity (see eq. 11), whereas it is effective if the turbulence
is sufficiently weak, αvir ≪ 1 (Bonnell et al., 2001a; Krumholz, McKee, & Klein,
2005a; magnetic fields, which tend to suppress accretion, have not been consid-
ered yet). Bonnell and his collaborators (Bonnell & Bate, 2006 and references
therein) argue that the gas throughout star-forming clumps has a very low tur-
bulent velocity so that protostars in clusters can accrete efficiently. On the other
hand, Krumholz, McKee, & Klein (2005a) argue that stellar feedback and the
cascade of turbulence from larger scales ensure that the star-forming clumps are
sufficiently turbulent to be approximately virialized and to therefore have neg-
ligible competitive accretion. Analysis of data from several star-forming clumps
shows that stars in these clumps could grow by only (0.1 − 1)% in a dynamical
time, far too small to be significant. The timescale for the formation of star
clusters is an important discriminant between these models: Star clusters form
in about 2tff if turbulence is allowed to decay, whereas it can take significantly
longer if turbulence is maintained (Bonnell, Bate, & Vine, 2003). The observa-
tional evidence discussed by Tan, Krumholz, & McKee (2006) and Krumholz &
Tan (2007) favors the longer formation time. This controversy can be resolved
through more detailed observations of gas motions in star-forming clumps and
through more realistic simulations that allow for the evolution of the turbulent
density fluctuations as the clump forms and evolves to a star-forming state, and
that incorporate stellar feedback.
4.1.3 Observations of low-mass star formation The growth of proto-
stars can be inferred through observations of the mass distribution surrounding
the protostar, the velocity distribution of this circumstellar gas, and the non-
stellar radiative flux. The mass and/or temperature distribution on both small
and large spatial scales can be inferred by modeling the spectral energy distribu-
tion (SED) of the continuum. Protostellar SEDs are conventionally divided into
four classes, which are believed to represent an evolutionary progression ( Myers
et al., 1987 divided sources into two classes; Lada, 1987 introduced Classes I-III;
Adams, Lada, & Shu, 1987 discussed a similar classification; and Andre, Ward-
Thompson, & Barsony, 1993 introduced Class 0). Andre, Ward-Thompson, &
Barsony (2000) have summarized the classification scheme:
Class 0: sources with a central protostar that are extremely faint in the
optical and near IR (i.e., undetectable at λ < 10 µ with the technology of the
1990’s) and that have a significant submillimeter luminosity, Lsmm /Lbol >
0.5%. Sources with these properties have Menvelope & m∗ . Protostars are
believed to acquire a significant fraction, if not most, of their mass in this
embedded phase.
Class I: sources with αIR > 0, where αIR ≡ d log λFλ /d log λ is the slope of
the SED over the wavelength range between 2.2 µ and 10–25 µ. Such sources
are believed to be relatively evolved protostars with both circumstellar disks
and envelopes.
Class II: sources with −1.5 < αIR < 0 are believed to be pre-main sequence
stars with significant circumstellar disks (classical T Tauri stars).
Class III: sources with αIR < −1.5 are pre-main sequence stars that are no
longer accreting significant amounts of matter (weak-lined T Tauri stars).
These classes can also be defined in terms of the “bolometric temperature,” which
is the temperature of a blackbody with the same mean frequency as the SED of
the YSO (Myers & Ladd, 1993).
66 McKee & Ostriker
Unfortunately, the geometry of the source can confound this classification

scheme (e.g., Masunaga & Inutsuka, 2000). It is well-recognized that a given
source can appear as a Class II source at small or moderate inclination angles
(so that the central star is visible) and as a Class I source at large inclination
angles (so that the central source is obscured by the disk). A similar ambiguity
can involve Class 0 sources if the protostellar envelope is flattened due to the
presence of a large-scale magnetic field or contains cavities created by protostel-
lar jets. White et al. (2007) summarize the observational evidence that many of
the properties of Class I and Class II sources are similar, which is consistent with
inclination effects confusing the evolutionary interpretation of the SEDs. This
ambiguity can be alleviated by radio or sub-millimeter observations of the en-
velopes, which yield masses that are independent of inclination; Motte & André
(2001) find that about 40% of the sources in Taurus that are classified as Class I
on the basis of their SEDs have envelope masses < 0.1M⊙ and are thus unlikely
to be true protostars. More sophisticated modeling of the SEDs can also clar-
ify the evolutionary sequence of young stellar objects; for example, Robitaille et
al. (2006) have calculated 2 × 105 model SEDs, including the effects of outflow
cavities, that can be automatically compared with observed SEDs to infer the
properties of the source. Counts of sources at different evolutionary stages to-
gether with an estimate for the age for one of the stages allows one to infer the
lifetimes for all the stages. Typical estimates for the ages are 1 − 2 × 105 yr for
Class I sources and 1 − 3 × 104 yr for Class 0 sources (Andre, Ward-Thompson,
& Barsony, 2000).
There is a significant discrepancy between the protostellar accretion rates that
are observed and those that are expected, resulting in the so-called “luminosity
problem” (Kenyon et al., 1990). The luminosity due to accretion onto the star is

Gm∗ ṁ∗ m∗ ṁ∗ 2.5 R⊙
Lacc = facc = 3.1facc L⊙ ,
R∗ 0.25M⊙ 10−6 M⊙ yr−1 R∗
(49)
where facc is the fraction of the gravitational potential energy released by accre-
tion, the rest being carried off in a wind or absorbed by the star (e.g., Ostriker
& Shu, 1995), 0.25M⊙ is the typical mass of a protostar (i.e, half the mass of a
typical star), and 2.5R⊙ is the corresponding radius (Stahler, 1988). There are
two main ways to estimate the expected average accretion rate, hṁ∗ i. (1) Since
both the mass ejected from the disk and the mass stored in the disk are generally
a small fraction of the stellar mass (see §4.2), the average accretion rate hṁ∗ i
should be comparable to the infall rate ṁin . Theoretically, for T = 10 K, this is
ṁin = 1.5 × 10−6 ǫcore φin M⊙ yr−1 (eqs. 43, 44). If the fraction of the core mass
that goes into the star is ǫcore ≃ 1/3 (Matzner & McKee, 2000; Alves, Lombardi,
& Lada, 2007), and if the envelope infall rate is that expected from rotating, mag-
netized collapse (φin ≃ 5—Krasnopolsky & Königl, 2002), then the infall rate is
ṁin ≃ 2.5 × 10−6 M⊙ yr−1 . Observationally, the properties of the envelopes
around Class I objects inferred from the SEDs give similar infall rates (Kenyon,
Calvet, & Hartmann, 1993), so this estimate for ǫcore φin cannot be too far off.
(2) A direct estimate of the average accretion rate is that forming an 0.5 M⊙ star
in 2 × 105 yr, the estimated upper limit on the duration of the embedded stage,
requires hṁ∗ i = 2.5 × 10−6 M⊙ yr−1 , comparable to the estimated infall rate.
The average luminosity corresponding to this accretion rate is hLi ≃ 8 L⊙ . The
problem is that the observed median luminosity of the bona fide Class I sources
(i.e., those with significant molecular envelopes) in Taurus is about 0.5 − 1 L⊙

(White & Hillenbrand, 2004 and Motte & André, 2001, respectively), almost an
order of magnitude smaller. The problem is significantly worse than this, how-
ever, since only a small fraction of the luminosity is due to accretion (Muzerolle,
Hartmann, & Calvet, 1998); White & Hillenbrand (2004) find that the fraction is
about 25%. The clearest statement of the luminosity problem is as an accretion
rate problem: The observed accretion rates in Class I protostars are 1 – 2 orders
of magnitude smaller than those needed to form a star during the lifetime of a
Class I object.
Kenyon et al. (1990) suggested two solutions to this problem. One solution is
that significant accretion continues into the T Tauri stage, but this appears to
be ruled out by the fact that such stars accrete very slowly (10−8 M⊙ yr−1 ; see
§4.2.1), and there is not a significant disk or envelope mass reservoir that they can
draw on for episodic accretion. The other solution is that most of the accretion
occurs in the embedded stage, but it is episodic, so that the median accretion
rate is much smaller than the mean. They suggested that the high accretion-rate
stage of protostellar accretion could correspond to FU Orionis objects, which are
very luminous (typically 200 − 800 L⊙ — Hartmann & Kenyon, 1996) and have
have accretion rates ∼ 10−4 M⊙ yr−1 . Such outbursts could be due to thermal
instability (Bell & Lin, 1994; Bell et al., 1995), although this would only affect
the inner disk, and hence the outburst would be limited in duration and total
mass accreted; or to gravitational instability in the disk (see §4.2.2 and Vorobyov
& Basu 2005b, 2006). However, Hartmann & Kenyon (1996) estimate that the
observed FU Ori objects can account for only about 5 − 20% of the mass of stars
forming in the solar vicinity; this discrepancy has not disappeared in the inter-
vening decade. Recent observational studies of the central stars in Class I sources
differ on their evolutionary status: White & Hillenbrand (2004) argue that the
Class I protostars are similar to T Tauri stars and are thus past the main pro-
tostellar accretion phase, whereas Doppmann et al. (2005) come to the opposite
conclusion. If protostars are close to their final mass by the time they become
Class I sources, then they must gain most of their mass in the Class 0 stage.
In this case the luminosity problem remains, albeit in a milder form: The mean
accretion rate required to form an 0.5 M⊙ star in 3 × 104 yr (the estimated upper
limit on the lifetime of a Class 0 source—Andre, Ward-Thompson, & Barsony,
2000) is 1.7 × 10−5 M⊙ yr −1 , corresponding to hLi ≃ 50facc (2.5 R⊙ /R∗ )L⊙ ; by
contrast, the median luminosity of the Class 0 sources listed by Andre, Ward-
Thompson, & Barsony (2000) is about 10 L⊙ . This luminosity problem could
be alleviated if a significant fraction of the accretion energy is carried off by the
powerful protostellar outflows that accompany these sources, so that facc . 1/2.
However, accounting for a value of the infall rate as high as the inferred accretion
rate onto the star remains a theoretical challenge: The magnetized collapse mod-
els discussed above give infall rates of a few ×10−6 M⊙ yr−1 (for ǫcore ∼ 1/3),
significantly less than required. A resolution of the luminosity problem thus
remains elusive.
Spectroscopic observations using molecular transitions can give both the mass
and velocity distributions in collapsing cores (Myers, Evans, & Ohashi, 2000), but
to date the spatial resolution of these data is generally & 100 AU. Evidence for
infall in unresolved cores is provided by the “infall asymmetry” (Lucas, 1976; Le-
ung & Brown, 1977; Myers et al., 1996): optically thick, infalling gas in which the
excitation temperature rises toward the center produces a characteristic line pro-
68 McKee & Ostriker
file in which the blue wing is stronger than the red wing. Observations of samples
of starless cores (Lee, Myers, & Tafalla, 1999, 2001), Class 0 sources (Gregersen
et al., 1997), and Class I sources (Gregersen et al., 2000) show a “blue excess”
[(blue asymmetries - red asymmetries)/(number of sources)] of about 0.25 − 0.35,
indicating that many of these sources are undergoing collapse (Myers, Evans, &
Ohashi, 2000). Unfortunately, it has proved difficult to carry out unambiguous
observational tests of the theoretical models for protostellar accretion. Furuya,
Kitamura, & Shinnaga (2006) mapped the infall in a young Class 0 source and
found reasonably good agreement with the LPH solution (φin ≃ 20 in eq. 43);
this source appears to be very young, since for r > 100 AU there is no evidence for
the ρ ∝ r −3/2 density profile expected for accretion onto a protostar of significant
mass. Tafalla et al. (1998) and Lee, Myers, & Tafalla (2001) found that infall is
more extended than expected in inside-out collapse models, although this infall
may reflect the formation of small clusters rather than individual stars. They
also found that the infall velocity is faster than expected in standard ambipo-
lar diffusion models; however, the velocities are consistent with the collapse of
magnetically supercritical cores (Ciolek & Basu, 2000). A potentially important
result is that Ohashi et al. (1997) found that cores in Taurus are in solid body
rotation on scales & 0.03 pc but conserve angular momentum on smaller scales.
The physical significance of this length scale could be inferred by determining its
value in other molecular clouds.
Brown Dwarfs Since brown dwarfs represent the low-mass extreme of star
formation, they can shed light on the earliest stages of star formation. As a
result of a great deal of observational work over the past decade, it has been
established that most brown dwarfs form by the same mechanism as most stars
(Luhman et al., 2007; Whitworth et al., 2007): the initial mass function, velocity
and spatial distributions at birth, multiplicity, accretion rates, circumstellar disks,
and outflows are all continuous extensions of those for hydrogen-burning stars.
This is to be expected, since stars near the H-burning limit at 0.075 M⊙ reach
their final mass long before hydrogen burning commences. Following Whitworth
et al. (2007) and Chabrier et al. (2007), we shall assume that brown dwarfs form
by gravitational instability on a dynamical timescale, and that their composition
reflects that of the ambient interstellar medium. By contrast, planets are believed
to form in circumstellar disks and to have an elemental composition with an
excess of heavy elements. With these definitions, the observational distinction
between giant planets with masses & MJ and small brown dwarfs is somewhat
indistinct, but should eventually be amenable to spectroscopic determination
(Chabrier et al., 2007). The lower limit to the mass of a brown dwarf is set
by the condition that the star become opaque to the radiation it emits while
undergoing gravitational collapse (Low & Lynden-Bell, 1976); including helium,
this is about 4 × 10−3 M⊙ ≃ 4MJ (Whitworth et al., 2007). The smallest brown
dwarfs detected to date have masses ∼ (0.01 − 0.02)M⊙ (Luhman et al., 2007).
In order for a brown dwarf to form, its mass must exceed the Bonnor-Ebert
mass, even if it forms via shock compression (Elmegreen & Elmegreen, 1978); the
pressure at the surface of the core that forms the brown dwarf must therefore
be P/kB & 109 (T /10 K)4 (10−2 M⊙ /mBD )2 K cm−3 at the surface of the brown
dwarf. Assuming that brown dwarfs form by turbulent fragmentation, Padoan
& Nordlund (2004) show that such pressures can be reached in a large enough
fraction of the mass of the cluster IC348 to account for the brown dwarfs observed
there. This model is based on the asumption that the gas is isothermal and that
as a result the density PDF is a log-normal (eq. 5). The remaining mystery is,
why is the IMF of brown dwarfs relatively constant (at least to within a factor
2) when their numbers are exponentially sensitive to the mean of the log-normal,
which depends on the Mach number at the largest scale in the cloud? This
mystery is part of the larger mystery as to why the IMF appears to be universal,
but in the brown dwarf regime the exponential sensitivity to ambient conditions
potentially offers an opportunity to determine how ambient conditions affect the
IMF.
Whitworth et al. (2007) review a number of other mechanisms for brown dwarf
formation that could contribute in some cases: (1) Hierarchical fragmentation—
Protostellar cores can fragment as they collapse, and indeed this process is be-
lieved to lead to the formation of binary and multiple star systems (§4.1.3).
Simulations are as yet inadequate to evaluate the effectiveness of this process in
producing brown dwarfs; in particular, it is important to include proper treat-
ment of the radiative transfer (Boss et al., 2000; Whitehouse & Bate, 2006). (2)
Disk fragmentation—Several analyses have shown that fragmentation in disks
around low-mass stars is suppressed for r . 100 AU (Matzner & Levin, 2005;
Rafikov, 2005; Whitworth et al., 2007), but again accurate treatment of radia-
tive transfer is essential for quantifying this further. Goodwin & Whitworth
(2007) have suggested that brown dwarfs form in disks beyond 100 AU and that
the resulting binaries are disrupted by passing stars. (3) Premature ejection of
protostellar embryos (Reipurth & Clarke, 2001) —This is a variant of the hi-
erarchical fragmentation scenario, in which low-mass protostars that form via
fragmentation are ejected before they can accrete enough matter to reach the
hydrogen-burning limit. Reipurth & Clarke (2001) suggested that the ejected
brown dwarfs would have a higher velocity dispersion, a more extended spatial
distribution and smaller disks than their more massive cousins. This has not
been observed (Luhman et al., 2007), but SPH simulations suggest that in fact
these differences between brown dwarfs and hydrogen-burning stars are relatively
small (Goodwin et al., 2005); more accurate calculations are needed to determine
the magnitude of the differences. A difficulty with the ejection model is that the
cluster simulations that support it produce too many single stars to be consistent
with observation (Goodwin & Kroupa, 2005). Observations of BD-BD binaries
can provide a strong test of models for brown dwarf formation, particularly the
ejection model (Burgasser et al., 2007). (4) Photoevaporation—Cores that are
close to an O star can undergo a radiation-driven implosion (Klein, Sandford,
& Whitaker, 1980; Bertoldi, 1989); the subsequent equilibrium photoevaporation
produces very high pressures (Bertoldi & McKee, 1990). This process may pro-
duce brown dwarfs (e.g., Whitworth & Zinnecker, 2004), but more work is needed
to determine if the number of such brown dwarfs is significant.
Binaries Stars are roughly evenly divided between those that are in multiple
systems (mainly binaries) and those that are single. For stars of mass ∼ 1 M⊙ ,
Duquennoy & Mayor (1991) found that the fraction of stellar systems that are
multiple—i.e., the ratio of the total number of binaries, triples, etc. divided by
the total number of systems, including single stars—is fmult = 0.58. Multiplicity
declines for smaller masses, and Reid & Gizis (1997) find fmult ≃ 0.3 for stars in
70 McKee & Ostriker
the solar neighborhood, which are primarily M stars. Lada (2006) finds a similar
result when one averages over the entire IMF: the majority of stellar systems (as
opposed to the majority of stars) are single. The fraction of singles is smaller
at birth, however: Higher-order multiples (triples, etc.) are often dynamically
unstable, and in dense environments collisions among stellar systems can disrupt
wide binaries (Kroupa, Petr, & McCaughrean, 1999). Observations summarized
by Duchêne et al. (2007) show that the multiplicity among T Tauri stars in low-
density associations such as Taurus-Auriga and Ophiuchus and among Class I
sources in high-density regions such as L1641 in Orion is about twice as high as
among field stars. In dense star-forming regions like Orion, however, this excess
multiplicity is soon erased—for example, the multiplicity in the Orion Nebula
Cluster (which is older than L1641) is the same as in the field. This introduces
a complication in comparing the core mass function with the IMF (§3.3): on
average, cores produce more than one star, and the properties of the resulting
stellar systems evolve with time. This is not a major complication, however, since
each core typically produces only 2-3 stars (Goodwin & Kroupa, 2005), and the
distribution of secondary masses in typical binaries appears to follow the field
star IMF (Goodwin et al., 2007). It should be noted that the multiplicity of the
stars is imprinted on their spatial distribution: Larson (1995) found a clear break
in the density of companions in Taurus at about 0.04 pc, separating binaries and
multiple stars from larger scale clusters.
Binaries raise two important issues in the theory of star formation: What is
the role of binaries in reducing the angular momentum inherited by protostars?
What determines how molecular cores fragment? Binaries do not appear to be
effective in taking up the angular momentum of the initial core: Fisher (2004)
has shown that turbulent molecular cores must lose 99%-99.9% of their initial
angular momentum in order to qualitatively account for a number of features
of the binary population with periods & 103 day. This angular momentum loss
is generally assumed to be due to magnetic braking (§4.1.1), but Jappsen &
Klessen (2004) suggest that gravitational torques can also contribute. Binaries
can remove angular momentum on small scales by ejecting a a companion, which
hardens the remaining binary. However, Goodwin & Kroupa (2005) point out
two limitations on this process: (1) it tends to create equal mass binaries, which
are not common for typical stars, and (2) it would create a population of single
stars significantly larger than observed.
There is an extensive literature on the fragmentation of protostellar cores into
binary and multiple protostars that is reviewed by Bodenheimer et al. (2000),
Duchêne et al. (2007) and Goodwin et al. (2007). Simulations of fragmentation
are very challenging because of the enormous range of scales involved, and it
does not appear that any of the simulations carried out to date have enough
resolution and enough physics (i.e., including MHD and radiative transfer) to
adequately address the problem (Klein et al., 2007). In particular, a number
of simulations produce 5-10 fragments per core, whereas observations show that
most cores produce only 2-3 fragments (Goodwin & Kroupa, 2005).
4.2 Disks and Winds

4.2.1 OBSERVATIONS OF DISKS Because protostellar cores are rotat-
ing, collapse with conservation of angular momentum results in the formation of
a centrifugally-supported disk (§4.1.1). Observed sizes and rotation parameters
for low-mass dense cores predict disk sizes ∼ < 1000 AU, consistent with high-
resolution submillimeter continuum observations that indicate average (dust) disk

sizes around T Tauri stars of ≈ 200AU (Andrews & Williams, 2007); similar re-
sults are obtained using mm interferometry (Kitamura et al., 2002). The disks
around T Tauri disks extend inward to ∼ 0.04 AU based on modeling of observed
CO vibrational emission lines (Najita et al., 2006); these inner radii are smaller
than the inner disk radii inferred for dust disks, presumably because the dust
sublimates. The initial sizes of circumstellar disks are more difficult to deter-
mine, because protostellar systems in the earliest stages (prior to the T Tauri
stage) are still enshrouded in dusty envelopes that emit at similar wavelengths
to the disk; in a few cases where the inner envelope emission can be spatially
separated out, disk sizes appear similar (e.g. Jørgensen et al. 2005).
Masses of protostellar disks are estimated using the continuum flux in millime-
ter and submillimeter wavelengths. The first disk mass estimates for T Tauri
stars were obtained from observations of the total flux at a single millimeter
wavelength under the assumption of optically thin emission (e.g., Beckwith et
al. 1990), but subject to an uncertainty in the overall normalization due to the
uncertainty in the dust opacity coefficient (since Mdisk ∝ Fν /(ν 2 κν )). Multiwave-
length (sub-mm to cm) observations suggest that the dust opacity law κν ∝ ν β
has a distinctly shallower slope β than holds for dust in the diffuse ISM, presum-
ably due to grain growth (e.g., Beckwith & Sargent 1991; Beckwith, Henning, &
Nakagawa 2000). Interpretation of the multiwavelength flux data as implying a
change in β is complicated by the fact that some of the short-wavelength emission
can be optically thick (which would yield Fν ∝ ν 2 independent of β for a disk
that is optically thick at all ν ). However, spatially resolved observations can be
combined with modeling to correct for optically-thick contributions varying with
ν and R , with the resulting median β ∼ < 1 (e.g. Natta et al. 2007; Andrews &
Williams 2007; Lommen et al. 2007), suggesting that the largest “grains” are in
fact cm-size pebbles (e.g. Wilner et al. 2005; Rodmann et al. 2006). Total disk
masses for T Tauri systems are estimated to be in the range ∼ 10−3 − 10−1 M⊙ ,
with a median near 0.005 M⊙ from submillimeter observations (e.g. Andrews &
Williams 2005), but these may severely underestimate the true masses if a large
fraction of the grains have grown to mm or cm sizes and thus emit only weakly in
the submm (Hartmann et al., 2006; Natta et al., 2007). Determining the distri-
bution of mass within disks is difficult because submm emission is likely optically
thick in the inner regions, while at longer wavelengths there is insufficient reso-
lution to probe the inner-disk regions (Andrews & Williams, 2007). Finally, we
note that disk mass determinations assume a cosmic ratio of gas to dust; at late
evolutionary stages, photoevaporation may preferentially remove gas and planet
formation may preferentially remove dust.
The thermal structure of protostellar disks is likely quite complex. Disks can
be heated both externally via irradiation from the central star, and internally
from dissipation and thermalization of orbital kinetic energy as the gas accretes
(Calvet et al., 1991; Chiang & Goldreich, 1997). As a consequence, the vertical
temperature distribution depends on details of the system and can have a local
minimum at intermediate altitude (D’Alessio et al., 1998). The vertical tempera-
ture distribution together with its dependence on radius must be self-consistently
calculated, since the flaring of the disk surface affects the amount of radiation
intercepted from the central star (see discussion and references in Dullemond et
al., 2007). In addition, gas and dust temperatures may differ in the upper at-
72 McKee & Ostriker
mospheres where the densities are low and stellar X rays strongly heat the gas
(Najita et al., 2006). Quite sophisticated radial-vertical radiative models (includ-
ing grain growth and settling) have been developed that agree well with observed
spectral energy distributions from µm to mm wavelengths (see e.g. Dullemond
& Dominik, 2004, D’Alessio et al., 2006 and references therein). The IR emission
signatures, including PAH features at 3 − 13 µ and edge-on silhouette images, as
well as scattered-light/polarization observations in optical and near-IR, indicate
that although some grains have grown to large sizes, small grains still remain in
disk atmospheres (see references and discussion in Dullemond et al., 2007 and
Natta et al., 2007).
Disk lifetimes are inferred based on stellar ages combined with IR and mm/sub-
mm emission signatures, which are sensitive to warm dust. Multiwavelength
Spitzer observations of the nearby star-forming cluster IC 348 (Lada et al., 2006)
show that for ∼ 70% of stars, disks have become optically-thin in the IR (implying
inner disks R ∼ < 20AU have been removed) within the 2-3 Myr age of the system;
disk fractions are slightly higher (∼ 50%) for Solar-type stars than in those of
higher or lower mass. Observations of other clusters are consistent with these
results (Sicilia-Aguilar et al., 2006a). L-band observations of disk frequencies in
clusters spanning a range of ages (Haisch, Lada, & Lada, 2001) suggests that
overall disk lifetimes are ≈ 6 Myr. Even in the 10Myr old cluster NCG 7160,
however, a few percent of stars still show IR signatures of disks (Sicilia-Aguilar
et al., 2006a), and disk lifetimes appear to be inversely correlated with the mass
of the star (Hernandez et al., 2007). Signatures (or their absence) of dusty disk
emission are also well correlated with evidence (or lack) of accretion in gaseous
emission line profiles (see below) in systems at range of ages, indicating that gas
and dust disks have similar lifetimes (Jayawardhana et al., 2006; Sicilia-Aguilar
et al., 2006b). Andrews & Williams (2005) found, for a large sample of YSOs
in Taurus-Auriga, that in general those systems with near-IR signatures of inner
disks also have sub-mm signatures of outer disks, and vice versa; they conclude
that inner and outer disk lifetimes agree within 105 yr.
Accretion in YSO systems is studied using a variety of diagnostics (see e.g. Cal-
vet, Hartmann, & Strom (2000)), including continuum “veiling” of photospheric
absorption lines and optical emission lines, which are respectively believed to arise
from hot (shocked) gas on the stellar surface and from gas that is falling onto
the star along magnetic flux tubes. Gullbring et al. (1998) measured a median
accretion rate for million-year-old T Tauri stars of ∼ 10−8 M⊙ yr−1 , and White
& Ghez (2001) found similar accretion rates for the primaries in T Tauri binary
systems. A recent compilation of observations (White & Basri, 2003; Muzerolle et
al., 2003; Calvet et al., 2004) shows an approximate dependence of the accretion
rate on stellar mass Ṁdisk ∝ m2∗ , although with considerable scatter (Muzerolle
et al., 2005). This scaling of the accretion rate with stellar mass is potentially
explained by Bondi-Hoyle accretion from the ambient molecular cloud (Padoan
et al., 2005). However, such a model accounts only for the infall rate onto the
star-disk system, not the disk accretion rate; these need not agree. In addition,
it does not account for the accretion seen in T Tauri stars outside molecular
clouds (Hartmann et al., 2006). During their embedded stages (a few ×105 yr),
low-mass stars have typical disk accretion rates similar to or slightly larger than
those of TTSs (White et al., 2007). As discussed in §4.1.3, the infall rates from
protostellar envelopes typically exceed disk accretion rates by a factor 10-100, so
it is possible that mass is stored in the disk and released intermittently, in brief
but prodigious accretion events similar to FU Ori outbursts (Kenyon et al., 1990;
Hartmann & Kenyon, 1996).
For high-mass protostars, observations suggest that there are at least two
classes of disks (Cesaroni et al., 2007). In moderate-luminosity sources corre-
sponding to B stars (L . few ×104 L⊙ ), the disks appear to be Keplerian,
with masses significantly less than the stellar mass and time scales for mass
transfer ∼ 105 yr. In luminous sources (L & 105 L⊙ ), the disks are large
(4 − 30 × 103 AU) and massive (60 − 500 M⊙ ). Consistent with the discus-
sion in §§4.1.1 and 4.1.1, the disks are observed to be non-Keplerian on these
large scales. To distinguish these structures from the disks observed around B
stars, Cesaroni (2005) terms them “toroids.” The inferred infall rates in these
disks are of order 2 × 10−3 − 2 × 10−2 M⊙ yr−1 , corresponding to mass transfer
time scales of order 104 yr (Zhang, 2005). In view of their large size and mass,
they may be circumcluster structures rather than circumstellar ones. Indeed, one
of the best studied luminous sources, G10.8-0.4, is inferred to have an embedded
cluster of stars with a total mass ∼ 300 M⊙ (Sollins et al., 2005). Simulations of
the formation of an individual massive star in a turbulent medium give a disk size
∼ 103 AU, significantly smaller than the size of the toroids (Krumholz, Klein, &
McKee, 2005). To date, no disks have been observed in the luminous sources on
scales . 103 AU. Most likely, this is because of the observational difficulties in
observing such disks; it should be borne in mind, however, that there is no direct
evidence that these sources are in fact protostellar. Including disks around both B
stars and the toroids around luminous sources, Zhang (2005) finds that the mass
infall rate in the disks scales as Ṁdisk ∝ m2.2∗ , although there are substantial
uncertainties in the data for the luminous sources.
4.2.2 ACCRETION MECHANISMS The most fundamental theoretical
question about YSO disks is what makes them accrete; while many mechanisms
have been investigated, the problem is still open. In large part this is because the
accretion process depends on a complicated interplay of MHD, radiative transfer,
chemistry, and even solid state physics. The MHD is itself non-ideal, since the
medium is partially ionized, and in addition self-gravity is important in many
circumstances. Self-gravity effects and the level of electrical conductivity are
very sensitive to thermal and ionization properties, which in turn are determined
by chemistry and radiative transfer (including X-rays and cosmic rays), and the
latter are strongly affected by grain properties that evolve in time due to stick-
ing and fragmentation. Compounding the difficulty imposed by the interactions
among the physical processes involved is the lack of exact knowledge of initial and
boundary conditions: how does collapse of the rotating protostellar core shape
the distribution of mass in the disk, starting from the initial disk-building stage
and continuing (although at a reduced rate) with later infall? Finally, there is
the difficulty imposed by the huge dynamic range in space and time; disks them-
selves span a range of ∼ 104 in radius and 106 in orbital period, while the small
aspect ratio H/R ≪ 1 (where H is the scale height of the disk) implies a further
extension in dynamic range is required for numerical models that resolve the disk
interior.
Processes proposed to transport angular momentum in YSO disks generally
fall into one of three categories: purely hydrodynamic mechanisms, MHD mecha-
nisms, and self-gravitating mechanisms (e.g., see the reviews of Stone et al. 2000
and Gammie & Johnson 2005). Within the last decade, it has become possi-
74 McKee & Ostriker
ble to investigate mechanisms in each class using high-resolution time-dependent

numerical simulations in two and three dimensions, in which the stresses that
produce transport are explicitly obtained as spatial correlations of component
velocities, magnetic fields, and the density and pressure for a self-consistent flow.
Prior to the computational revolution that made these investigations possible,
and continuing into the present for modeling in which large radial domains and
long-term evolution is required, many studies have made use of the so-called “al-
pha prescription” for angular momentum transport. In this approach (Shakura
& Sunyaev, 1973; Lynden-Bell & Pringle, 1974; Pringle, 1981), a stress tensor is
defined that yields an effective viscous torque between adjacent rings in a dif-
ferentially rotating disk. On dimensional grounds, and using the fact that the
shear stress should be zero for solid-body rotation, this stress can be written as
TR,φ ≡ −αP d ln Ω/d ln R; i.e. the effective kinematic viscosity is taken to obey
ν ≡ ασth 2 /Ω = ασ H. This effective viscosity Ansatz makes it possible to study
th
disk evolution with a purely hydrodynamic, one-dimensional model. While the
“α-model” approach has been essential to progress on modeling disk observables,
it is limited in its ability to capture realistic dynamics since the coefficient is ar-
bitrary (and usually taken as spatially constant) and the adopted functional form
for TR,φ , while dimensionally correct, may not reproduce the true behavior of non-
linear, time-dependent, three-dimensional flows (e.g., see Ogilvie 2003; Pessah,
Chan, & Psaltis 2006). For a Keplerian disk, −d ln Ω/d ln R = 3/2 and in steady
state the mass accretion rate is Ṁdisk = 3πΣν = 3πΣασth 2 /Ω; i.e. the ratio of ra-
dial inflow speed to orbital speed is (vR /vφ ) = (3/2)α(σth /vφ )2 = (3/2)α(H/R)2 .
Observed accretion rates of TTSs require α ∼ 10−2 (Hartmann et al., 1998). Since
the effective viscosity is equal to a characteristic length scale for angular momen-
tum transport times a characteristic transport speed, the empirically-determined
viscosity corresponds to a few percent of the value that would obtain if transport
occurred at sonic speeds over distances comparable to the scale height of the disk.
Using the infall rate scaling of equation (43), the ratio of the disk accretion
rate to the infall rate is
Tdisk 3/2

Ṁdisk α Mdisk R
∼ , (50)
ṁin φin m∗ H Tcore
where we have assumed that the gravitational potential is dominated by the star.
The outer-disk temperature is not much larger than the temperature in the core,
and R/H ∼ 10 for the outer disk, so the disk accretion rate is much lower than
the infall rate unless Mdisk /m∗ or α/φin exceeds ∼ 0.1. This is not the case
for TTSs, but during the embedded stages the disk masses may be larger, and
(possibly as a consequence of larger Mdisk and self-gravity; see below) the values
of α may be larger as well.
Hydrodynamic Mechanisms The simplest transport mechanisms would be

purely hydrodynamic. Turbulence generated either through convection (due to
vertical or radial entropy gradients), through shear-driven hydrodynamic insta-
bilities, or through external agents (such as time-dependent, clumpy infall) could
in principle develop velocity field correlations hρδvR δvφ i of the correct sign (> 0)
to transport angular momentum outward. Ryu & Goodman (1992) showed, how-
ever, that convective modes tend to transport angular momentum inward, rather
than outward, and Stone & Balbus (1996) confirmed from three dimensional
numerical simulations with turbulence driven by convection that angular mo-

mentum transport is inward. Convection driven by radial entropy gradients also
transports angular momentum inward, and is generally stabilized by differential
rotation (Johnson & Gammie, 2006).
Several analytic studies have shown that purely hydrodynamic disturbances
in Keplerian-shear disks are able to experience large transient growth (Chagel-
ishvili et al., 2003; Klahr, 2004; Umurhan & Regev, 2004; Johnson & Gammie,
2005a; Afshordi, Mukhopadhyay, & Narayan, 2005), especially for the case of two-
dimensional (i.e. z-independent) columnar structures. Conceivably, transient
growth of sheared waves could lead to self-sustained turbulence with outward
transport of angular momentum, if new leading wavelets could be continually
reseeded in the flow via nonlinear interactions (Lithwick, 2007). While tran-
sient growth is indeed seen in two-dimensional (R − φ) numerical simulations,
it is subject to secondary Kelvin-Helmholtz instability that limits the growth
when |kR δvφ |/Ω ∼ > 1 (Shen, Stone, & Gardiner, 2006). The turbulence that re-
sults also appears to decay without creating leading wavelets to complete the
feedback loop, but this may be due to limited numerical resolution. Other
numerical evidence, together with analytic arguments, suggest that nonlinear
shear-driven hydrodynamic instabilities are unable to maintain turbulence for
Rayleigh-stable rotational profiles (in which angular momentum increases out-
ward, i.e. κ2 /Ω2 = 2d ln(ΩR2 )/d ln R > 0) (Balbus, Hawley, & Stone, 1996;
Hawley, Balbus, & Winters, 1999). Since simulations using the same numerical
methods show that analogous Cartesian shear flows do exhibit nonlinear instabil-
ity, rotating systems are presumably stabilized by Coriolis forces and the epicyclic
motion that results. One potential concern is that the effective Reynolds numbers
of numerical experiments are too low to realize nonlinear shear-driven instabilities
and self-sustained turbulence. Very recently, however, Ji et al. (2006) reported
from laboratory experiments at Reynolds numbers up to millions that hydrody-
namic flows with Keplerian-like rotation profiles in fact show extremely low levels
of angular momentum transport, corresponding to α < 10−6 .
Although it may be difficult to grow perturbations from instabilities in uni-
form Keplerian disks, it is still possible that disks are born with large internal
perturbations, and that ongoing infall at all radii can continually resupply them.
Simulations have shown that two-dimensional disks with non-uniform vorticity
tend to develop large-scale, persistent vortices that are able to transport angu-
lar momentum outwards (Umurhan & Regev, 2004; Johnson & Gammie, 2005b).
Three-dimensional simulations, however, show that vortex columns tend to be
destroyed (Barranco & Marcus, 2005; Shen, Stone, & Gardiner, 2006). While
off-midplane vortices can be long-lived (Barranco & Marcus, 2005), the angular
momentum transport in three-dimensional simulations is an order of magnitude
lower than for the two-dimensional case (Shen, Stone, & Gardiner, 2006), and
secularly decays. Further investigation of this process is needed, and it is par-
ticularly important to assess whether vorticity can be injected at a high enough
rate to maintain the effective levels of α ∼ 10−2 needed to explain observed TTS
accretion.
MHD Mechanisms The introduction of magnetic fields considerably alters

the dynamics of circumstellar disks. The realization by Balbus & Hawley (1991)
that weakly-or-moderately magnetized, differentially rotating disks are subject
76 McKee & Ostriker
to a powerful local instability – now generically referred to as the magnetorota-

tional instability (MRI) – revolutionized the theory of accreting systems. Early
axisymmetric numerical simulations showed robust growth and development of
the so-called channel solution (Hawley & Balbus, 1991), while three-dimensional
numerical simimulations showed emergence of quasi-steady state saturated tur-
bulence (Hawley, Gammie, & Balbus, 1995; Matsumoto & Tajima, 1995; Bran-
denburg et al., 1995) in which the angular momentum transport is outward, and
is dominated by the magnetic stresses, h−BR Bφ /(4π)i. Much effort has been
devoted to exploring the MRI as a basic mechanism driving accretion in a variety
of systems; Balbus & Hawley (1998) and Balbus (2003) summarize many of the
these developments. The effective value of α depends on the mean vertical mag-
netic flux, which presumably evolves over long timescales, and can easily exceed
0.1 (e.g., Hawley, Gammie, & Balbus 1996; Stone et al. 1996; Sano et al. 2004).
While MRI almost certainly plays an important role in driving accretion in
YSO systems, it is not a magic bullet. The difficulty is that substantial portions
of these disks may have ionization too low for MRI to be effective (Jin, 1996;
Gammie, 1996; Glassgold, Najita, & Igea, 1997; D’Alessio et al., 1998; Igea &
Glassgold, 1999), creating a “dead zone”. A critical review of the requirements for
MRI to develop in partially-ionized disks is given in Gammie & Johnson (2005);
Ohmic diffusion appears to be the main limiting effect, with the saturated-state
value of α dropping when vA,z 2 /ηΩ < 1, where η is the resistivity (Sano & Stone,
∼
2002; Turner, Sano, & Dziourkevitch, 2007). In the very innermost parts of
YSO disks (R ∼ < 0.1 AU), alkali metals are collisionally ionized where the stellar
irradiation maintains the temperature above ∼ 2000K, so MRI can operate. In

the outer disk (beyond several AU), and in the mid-disk’s surface layers, column
densities are low enough (Σ < Σa ∼ 100 g cm−2 ) that X rays or cosmic rays
can penetrate the disk to ionize it. (For comparison, the surface density in the
minimum Solar nebula is Σ = 1700(R/AU)−1.5 g cm−2 – Hayashi, Nakazawa,
& Nakagawa, 1985.) Unfortunately, the extent of the MRI-active region in the
outer disk is very sensitive to the presence and size distribution of dust particles;
if small grains are present and well-mixed, the active region is quite limited,
while it can become very large if all the dust is incorporated in large particles or
settles to the midplane (Sano et al., 2000; Fromang, Terquem, & Balbus, 2002;
Desch, 2004; Salmeron & Wardle, 2005). Even if ionizing radiation is limited
to the surface layers by high total disk columns, if small grains are absent (an
extreme assumption) the gas-phase recombination rate is low enough such that
turbulence with rapid vertical mixing can maintain non-negligible ionization in
the interior. Turner, Sano, & Dziourkevitch (2007) have shown, using direct
numerical simulations, that the dead zone can be effectively eliminated in this
(optimistic) scenario; while the very center of the disk at 1 AU is not unstable to
MRI, the interior is still conductive enough that magnetic fields generated nearer
the surface can induce accretion in the midplane.
One of the possible consequences of spatially-varying conductivity in disks is
that the accretion rate will, in general, vary with radius. If only a surface layer
Σa is “active”, in the sense of being sufficiently conductive to support MRI with
effective viscosity coefficient αa , then the accretion rate in that layer will be
Ṁa = 3πΣa αa σth2 /Ω. Since Σ varies slowly with radius (for the case of external
a
ionization) while the combination σth 2 /Ω tends to decrease inward, dropout from
the accretion flow can accumulate within the “dead zone” that is sandwiched
between active layers (Gammie, 1996). If the “dead zone” remains completely
inactive, then matter will build up until it becomes dynamically unstable and
begins to transport angular momentum by gravitational stresses (see below),
potentially leading to transient bursts of accretion (Gammie, 1996; Armitage,
Livio, & Pringle, 2001).
Finally, we note that MHD winds (see §4.2.5) may remove angular momentum
from disks, driving the matter remaining in the disk to accrete in order to main-
tain centrifugal balance. The angular momentum deficit is tranferred to the disk
by magnetic stresses, so that only the matter that is well-coupled to magnetic
fields will be affected. Thus, the above considerations regarding ionization also
apply to wind-driven accretion.
Self-Gravitational Mechanisms Accretion disks that have sufficiently small

values of the Toomre parameter Q = κσth /(πGΣ) ∼ (H/R)(m∗ /Mdisk ) are sub-
ject to nonlinear growth of density perturbations via the swing amplifier (see
§§2.2, 3.2.1). Then, in addition to hydrodynamic Reynolds stresses hρvR vφ i and
MHD Maxwell stresses −hBR Bφ /(4π)i, gravitational “Newton stresses” hgR gφ /
(4πG)i (where g = −∇Φ) also contribute to the radial transport of angular mo-
mentum. Gammie (2001) showed that if the disk is in equilibrium such that
cooling removes the energy dissipated by mass accretion at a rate per unit area
Σσth2 /[(γ − 1)t −1 = (9/4)γ(γ − 1)Ωt
cool ], then α cool , where γ is the effective
(two-dimensional) adiabatic index (which takes into account vertical degrees of
freedom, and depends on the three-dimensional index and degree of self-gravity).
Numerical simulations with simple cooling prescriptions (constant tcool Ω) show
that the disk can settle into a self-regulated state with Q near unity (Gammie,
2001; Lodato & Rice, 2004; Rice, Lodato, & Armitage, 2005; Mejı́a et al., 2005),
provided that tcool Ω is not too small (in which case the disk fragments). For
disks that are not externally illuminated, Johnson & Gammie (2003) performed
two-dimensional simulations with realistic opacities (and a “one-zone” vertical
radiative transfer approximation for cooling), and found that the transition be-
tween fragmentation and non-fragmentation lies in the range tcool Ω = 1−10. The
corresponding Σ at the transition point increases with Ω, such that outer disks are
the most active regions gravitationally. Values of α up to 0.5 are possible, with
the equilibrium condition prediction satisfied down to tcool Ω ≈ 3 and α ≈ 0.1.
Using a three-dimensional model of an 0.07 M⊙ disk with realistic cooling, Boley
et al. (2006) find a value of α ∼ 0.01 over a large range of radii > 20 AU.
In view of the limitations on α, Cesaroni et al. (2007) argue that accretion rates
are limited to values substantially smaller than inferred for the formation of high-
mass stars (§4.3.1). On the other hand, Krumholz, Klein, & McKee (2007) find
that disks around high-mass protostars can transfer mass inward at the same
rate that it falls in. They carried out simulations of high-mass star formation
in a turbulent medium and included radiative transfer rather than prescribing
the heating and cooling rates. They found that large amplitude m = 1 modes
develop that give effective values of α of order unity, in qualitative agreement
with the isothermal disk results of Laughlin & Bodenheimer (1994).
Disks that are illuminated sufficiently strongly will have the temperature set
by the external radiation field, rather than internal dissipation of energy. In that
case, whether self-gravity is important or not depends essentially on the amount
of matter present in a given region. Where the surface density is high enough so
78 McKee & Ostriker
that Q is near but not below the critical value ≈ 1.4, self-gravitational stresses
will be appreciable but not so large as to cause fragmentation. Analytic estimates
assuming steady state and accretion heating as well as irradiation (Matzner &
Levin, 2005; Rafikov, 2005) indicate that fragmentation is only possible in the
outer portions of disks, although more massive disks, around more massive stars,
are more subject to fragmentation (Kratter & Matzner, 2006). At temperatures
comparable to those in observed systems, disks with masses ∼ > 0.1 M are candi-
⊙
dates for having significant mass transport due to self-gravitating torques (Mayer
et al., 2004). Thus, self-gravity is likely to be particularly important during the
embedded stage of disk evolution, when disk masses are the largest. Vorobyov
& Basu (2005b, 2006) propose, based on results of two-dimensional simulations,
that recurrent “bursts” of accretion due to self-gravity are likely to develop dur-
ing the early stages of protostellar evolution. A number of other results from
models of self-gravitating disk evolution (with an emphasis on criteria for planet
formation through fragmentation) are presented in the review of Durisen et al.
(2007).
4.2.3 DISK CLEARING While a large proportion of the mass in the disk
ultimately accretes onto the star, conservation of angular momentum requires
that some of the matter be left behind. MHD winds during the main lifetime
of the disk remove some of this material (see §4.2.5). What remains is either
incorporated into planets, or removed by photoevaporation. Although planet
formation is inextricably coupled to disk evolution, recent developments in this
exciting – and rapidly expanding – field are too extensive to summarize here. A
number of excellent recent reviews appear in Protostars and Planets V.
Disks can be irradiated by UV and X ray photons originating either in their
own central stars, or in other nearby, luminous stars (see e.g. reviews of Hol-
lenbach, Yorke, & Johnstone 2000 and Dullemond et al. 2007). EUV radiation
penetrates only the surface layer of the disk, where it heats the gas to ∼ 104 K
(the ionization and heating depth is determined by the Strömgren condition);
FUV penetrates deeper into the disk (where densities are higher), but heats gas
to only a few 100 K (Hollenbach et al., 1994; Johnstone, Hollenbach, & Bally,
1998). The characteristic radial scale in the disk for a thermally-driven wind is the
gravitational radius rg = Gm∗ µ/(kT ), where T is the temperature at the base of
the flow. Pressure gradients enable flows to emerge down to (0.1 − 0.2)rg (Begel-
man, McKee, & Shields, 1983; Font et al., 2004; Adams et al., 2004). EUV-driven
winds are most important in the inner disk, since the gravitational potential there
is too deep for FUV-heated regions at modest temperatures to escape.
Observations discussed above (see also Simon & Prato 1995 and Wolk & Walter
1996) indicate that the inner and outer disks surrounding YSOs disperse nearly
simultaneously and on a very short (∼ 105 yr) timescale, based on the small
number of transition objects between classical and weak T Tauri systems and the
typical CTT lifetimes of a few to several Myr. Since the accretion time of the outer
disk itself determines the system lifetime, rapid removal of the outer disk must be
accomplished by other means; photoevaporation is the most natural candidate.
Models of photoevaporation that also include viscous disk evolution (which allow
spreading both inward and outward) have very recently shown that rapid and
near-simultaneous removal of the whole disk indeed occurs (Clarke, Gendrin, &
Sotomayor, 2001; Alexander, Clarke, & Pringle, 2006a,b). In this process, the
accretion rate declines slowly over time until the photoevaporative mass loss rate
at some location in the inner disk exceeds the rate at which mass is supplied
from larger radii. The inner disk, which is no longer resupplied from outside,
then drains rapidly into the star. At the same time, the radiative flux onto the
outer disk grows as it is no longer attenuated by the inner disk’s atmosphere; the
photoevaporation rate in the outer disk climbs dramatically, and it is removed as
well.
4.2.4 OBSERVATIONS OF YSO JETS AND OUTFLOWS Young
stellar systems drive very powerful winds. The clearest observable manifestations
of YSO winds are the central “Herbig-Haro” jets consisting of knots of ionized gas
(v ∼> 100 km s−1 ), and the larger-scale bipolar outflows consisting of expanding
lobes of molecular gas (v ∼ 10 km s−1 ). “Jet-like” outflows (i.e. high-v, narrow

molecular structures) are also observed in some circumstances (see below). The
high velocities of jets indicate that they represent (a part of) the primary wind
from the inner part of the star-disk system, while the low velocities and large
masses of (broad) molecular outflows indicate that they are made of gas from the
star’s environment that has been accelerated by an interaction with the wind.
In addition to these observed signatures, there may be significant gas in a large-
scale primary wind surrounding the jet, which remains undectected due to lower
excitation conditions (low density, temperature, and/or ionization fraction).
Outflows are ubiquitous in high-mass star formation as well as in low-mass star
formation (Shepherd & Churchwell, 1996). Outflows from high-mass protostellar
objects with L < 105 L⊙ (corresponding to m∗ < 25 M⊙ —Arnett, 1996) are
collimated (Beuther et al., 2002b), but somewhat less so than those in low-mass
protostars (Wu et al., 2004). In some cases, jets are observed with the outflows,
and in these cases the momentum of the jet is generally large enough to drive the
observed outflow (Shepherd, 2005). No well-collimated flow has been observed in
a source with L > 105 L⊙ ; as remarked above, disks that are clearly circumstellar
have not been observed in such sources either. Beuther & Shepherd (2005) have
proposed an evolutionary sequence that is consistent with much of these data: A
protostar that eventually will become an O star first passes through the HMPO
stage with no H II region and with a well-collimated jet. When the star becomes
sufficiently massive and close to the main sequence that it produces an H II region,
the outflow becomes less collimated. The collimation systematically decreases
as the star grows in mass and the H II region evolves from hypercompact to
ultracompact (see §4.3.4). The remainder of this section focuses on winds and
outflows from low-mass stars, which have been observed in much greater detail
than their high-mass counterparts.
Recent reviews focusing on the observational properties of jets include those
of Eisloffel et al. (2000), Reipurth & Bally (2001), and Ray et al. (2007). Jets
are most commonly observed at high resolution in optical forbidden lines of O,
S, and N, as well as Hα, but recent observations have also included work in the
near-IR and near-UV. For CTTs, which are YSOs that are themselves optically
revealed, observed optical jets are strongly collimated (aspect ratio at least 10:1,
and sometimes 100:1), and in several cases extend up to distances more than a
parsec from the central source (Bally, Reipurth, & Davis, 2007). The jets con-
tain both individual bright knots with bow-shock morphology, and more diffuse
emission between these knots.
The emission diagnostics from bright knots are generally consistent with heat-
ing by shocks of a few tens of km s−1 (Hartigan, Raymond, & Hartmann, 1987;
80 McKee & Ostriker
Hartigan, Morse, & Raymond, 1994), producing post-shock temperatures Te ≈

104 K. The electron density ne , ionization fraction xe = ne /nH , and temperature
Te can be estimated using line ratios (Bacciotti & Eislöffel, 1999). Analyses of
spectra from a number of jets yields a range of parameters ne = (50−3×103 ) cm−3
and xe = 0.03 − 0.6 so that n = (103 − 105 ) cm−3 (Podio et al., 2006). The total
mass loss rate in jets Ṁjet , and hence the total jet momentum flux, Ṁjet vjet , can
be estimated using jet densities and velocities together with an emission filling
factor, yielding Ṁjet = (10−8 − 10−7 ) M⊙ yr−1 for CTTs (Podio et al., 2006).
For Class 0 sources, which are much more luminous and have much higher accre-
tion rates, estimated mass-loss rates in jets based on O I emission (from shocked
gas) extend up to Ṁjet ∼ 10−6 M⊙ yr−1 (Ceccarelli et al., 1997). Inferred values
of Ṁjet are generally correlated with estimates of Ṁdisk from veiling (Hartigan,
Edwards, & Ghandour, 1995), with the ratio in the range 0.05 − 0.1 (Ray et al.,
2007).
The densities and temperatures obtained from jet diagnostics indicate internal
pressures P/kB = (107 − 109 ) K cm−3 in the jet, exceeding the ambient pressure
in the surrounding core and GMC by a factor 102 − 104 . In principle, infalling
envelope gas could provide a “nozzle” to collimate an emerging wind, but simula-
tions indicate that only relatively weak winds can be so confined as to produce a
narrow jet (Delamarter, Frank, & Hartmann, 2000). This implies that observed
jets must be contained within a broader wind, with collimation likely produced
by magnetic hoop stresses (see below). Emission line analyses in fact indicate
that a lower-velocity [∼ (10 − 50) km s−1 ] wind component is present near the
source, surrounding the high-velocity flow of a few 100 km s−1 that emerges as
the large-scale jet (Hartigan, Edwards, & Ghandour, 1995; Hirth, Mundt, & Solf,
1997; Bacciotti et al., 2000; Pyo et al., 2005). Since velocities of MHD winds
scale with the Keplerian rotation speed of the footpoint (see below), the presence
of both high- and low-velocity components suggests that winds are driven from
a range of radii in the disk. Recent high-resolution observations have detected
signatures of differential rotation in jets, using near-UV, optical, and near-IR
lines (Bacciotti et al., 2002; Ray et al., 2007); these also indicate a range of wind
launch points.
Recent reviews of the observational properties of molecular outflows include
those of Bachiller & Tafalla (1999), Richer et al. (2000), and Arce et al. (2007).
Like jets, classical molecular outflows can extend to distances 0.1 − 1 pc from the
central star, but they have much lower velocities (up to a few tens of km s−1 )
and collimation (aspect ratio ∼ 3 − 10). In a few very young, embedded sources,
molecular jets with much higher velocities and aspect ratios have been observed in
H2 , CO, and SiO lines (e.g., Gueth & Guilloteau 1999; Beuther et al. 2002a; Lee
et al. 2007). The total momentum flux carried in CO outflows is correlated with
the bolometric luminosity of the source and is discussed in §3.2.2. For embedded
sources with Lbol = 1−105 L⊙ , the momentum flux is 10−4 −10−1 M⊙ km s−1 yr−1
(Richer et al., 2000); in optically-revealed sources, this declines considerably (e.g.
Bontemps et al. 1996).
Detailed spectroscopic and morphological analysis of outflows enable inter-
comparisons with theoretical models. Mapping of outflows reveals both sim-
ple expanding shells, and more complex features such as multiple cavities and
bow shock structures that are suggestive of episodic ejection events (Lee et al.,
2002); outflow lobes become broader and more irregular over time (Arce & Sar-
gent, 2006). Channel maps and position-velocity diagrams in some sources show
parabolic structures that are consistent with driving by wide-angle winds, and in
other sources show spur structures that are consistent with jet driving (Lee et al.,
2000, 2001). The strongly curved morphology of internal bow shocks (as seen in
both molecular and atomic tracers) indicates that the wind must have velocities
that decrease away from the poles, since a time-variable wind with latitudinally-
constant velocity produces nearly flat internal shocks (Lee et al., 2001). This
implies, in turn, that the wind is driven from a range of radii in the disk, rather
than arising from only a narrow region.
4.2.5 DRIVING MHD WINDS AND JETS It was recognized very early
on that jets and outflows contain more momentum than could possibly be driven
by radiation pressure (Lada, 1985), whereas the high efficiencies and velocities
found by Blandford & Payne (1982) for MHD winds driven from accretion disks
in near-Keplerian rotation suggested that the same magnetocentrifugal mecha-
nism could drive winds in YSO systems (Pudritz & Norman, 1983). The main
requirement for these winds to develop is for the disk to be threaded by magnetic
fields of sufficient strength. The mathematical theory of MHD winds and jets is
presented in e.g. Spruit (1996) and Pudritz (2004).
Over the years, two main types of MHD wind models for YSO systems have
been explored. One, the “x-wind” model (see Shu et al. 1994 and references in Shu
et al. 2000 and Shang et al. 2007), focuses on the interaction region between the
stellar magnetosphere and the inner accretion disk as the source of the wind. In
this model, a large portion of the stellar dipole flux is taken to be concentrated
into a small range of radii near the point where the magnetosphere and disk
corotate. Since YSOs are rapid rotators, the corotation point is close to the
star, and the wind that would be launched could have terminal speed of a few
100 km s−1 , as is observed in jets. The second class of MHD wind models assumes
that a much larger region of the disk is threaded by open field lines, such that
there would be a range of terminal wind speeds, reflecting the range of rotation
speeds at the magnetic field’s footpoints in the disk (see references in Konigl &
Pudritz 2000 and Pudritz et al. 2007). For disk winds, the poloidal magnetic flux
could in part be generated locally (e.g. by an MRI dynamo), in part be advected
inward with the collapse of the prestellar core, and in part originate in the star
and diffuse outward into the disk. Since one type of wind would not exclude the
other, it is likely that both x-winds and disk winds are present at some level. This
might help, for example, explain particular features of jets such as their strong
central density concentration as well as the apparent decrease in velocity from
inside to outside.
The observed rotation velocities in jets can be used to infer the launch point
in the disk (Anderson et al., 2003). From the Bernoulli equation for a cold
flow along a streamline which rotates with angular velocity Ω0 , the quantity
E = 12 |v|2 + Φg − vφ Ω0 R is constant, where Φg = −Gm∗ /r is the gravitational
potential and in this section R denotes the cylindrical radius. At Robs , where
the wind is observed (sufficiently beyond the Alfvén transition), the dominant
terms in the E equation are the first and the last terms on the RHS. For the
cases of interest, vφ,obs ≪ vp,obs , where vp is the poloidal velocity, and |E|1/2 =
(3/2)1/2 Ω0 R0 ≪ vp,obs , so that Ω0 ≈ vp,obs
2 /(2vφ,obs Robs ). The specific angular
momentum j = R(vφ − Bφ Bp /[4πρvp ]) is also conserved along streamlines. One
can show that this is equal to Ω0 RA 2 , where R is the Alfvén radius of the wind.
A
82 McKee & Ostriker
Since j is dominated by the kinetic term at large distance (where the wind is
super-fast-magnetosonic),
√ observations can be used to infer the ratio RA /Robs ≈
2vφ,obs /vp,obs . For the low velocity component of DG Tau, Anderson et al.
(2003) find from calculating Ω0 as above that the wind launch point radii are
∼ 0.3 − 4AU, implying a disk wind. The high velocity component could originate
as either an x-wind or a disk wind from smaller radii. For DG Tau, the inferred
ratio RA /R0 ≈ 2 − 3 is also consistent with numerical solutions that have been
obtained for disk winds (see Pudritz et al. 2007 for a summary). This implies
that the angular momentum carried by the wind, Ṁwind Ω0 RA 2 , which equals the
angular momentum lost by the disk, Ṁdisk Ω0 R02 , can drive accretion at a rate
Ṁdisk /Ṁwind = (RA /R0 )2 ∼ 4 − 9.
The acceleration of MHD winds is provided by a combination of the centrifugal
“flinging” effect produced by rigid poloidal fields, and gradients in the toroidal
magnetic pressure in the poloidal direction (e.g. Spruit (1996)). Beyond the
Alfvén surface, magnetic hoop stresses will tend to bend streamlines toward the
poles. Full cylindrical streamline collimation, in the sense of vp k ẑ asymptoti-
cally, can only occur if Bφ R is finite for R → ∞ (Heyvaerts & Norman, 1989).
Using solutions in which all velocities scale as v, vA ∝ r −1/2 and the density and
magnetic field respectively scale as ρ ∝ r −q and B ∝ r −(1+q)/2 , Ostriker (1997)
showed, however, that cylindrically-collimated disk winds are slow, in the sense
that the asymptotic value of vp /Ω0 R0 is at most a few tenths. Since observed jets
are fast, they must either have their streamlines collimated by a slower external
wind, or else be collimated primarily in density rather than velocity. Time-
dependent simulations have also shown that the degree of collimation in the flow
depends on the distribution of magnetic flux in the disk; cases with steeper dis-
tributions of B with R tend to be less collimated in terms of streamline shapes
(Fendt, 2006; Pudritz, Rogers, & Ouyed, 2006).
The idea that nearly radially-flowing wide-angle MHD winds may produce a
“jetlike” core, with density stratified on cylinders, was first introduced by Shu et
al. (1995) in the context of x-winds. This effect holds more generally, however, as
can be seen both analytically (Matzner & McKee, 1999) and in simulations (see
below). Asymptotically, the density approaches ρ → |Bφ |Rk/(Ω0 R2 ) where k is
the (conserved) mass flux-to-magnetic flux ratio (also termed the mass-loading
parameter). Since nearly radially-flowing winds must be nearly force-free, |Bφ |R
varies weakly with R, such that if the range of k/Ω0 over footpoints is smaller
than the range of R over which the solution applies (which is generally very
large), the wind density will vary as R−2 . The R−2 dependence cannot continue
to the origin; Matzner & McKee (1999) suggested that precession, internal shocks
due to fluctuating wind velocity, or magnetic instabilities would result in a flat-
tening of the density close to the axis so that the momentum flux in the wind
ρvw ∝ (1 + θ02 − cos2 θ)−1 , where θ is the angle of the flow relative to the axis
and θ0 ≪ 1 measures the size of the flattened region. This distribution gives
approximately equal amounts of momentum in each logarithmic interval of angle
for θ > θ0 . Several time-dependent numerical MHD simulations have demon-
strated this density collimation effect for wide-angle winds (Gardiner, Frank, &
Hartmann, 2003; Krasnopolsky, Li, & Blandford, 2003; Anderson et al., 2005).
Magnetized winds are subject to a variety of instabilities (e.g. Kim & Ostriker
2000; Hardee 2004), which may contribute to enhancing the confinement of the
jet, structuring the jet column (yielding wanders, twists, and clumps), and mix-
ing with the ambient medium at interfaces. Since jets are likely surrounded by
wider winds, they are to some extent protected from the development of Kelvin-
Helmholtz and helical modes that that disrupt jets propagating through ambient
gas, although development of axisymmetric pinch modes may still contribute to
the formation of HH knots (Hardee & Rosen, 2002). In addition, lightly-loaded
poloidal flux within the central core of the wind/jet may help suppress the growth
of large-scale pinch and kink instabilities (Ostriker & Shu, 1995; Anderson et al.,
2006). Time-dependent simulations focusing on the portion of the wind flow
above the disk show that while steady winds are possible in certain ranges of the
mass-loading parameter for a given distribution of magnetic flux, in other ranges
no steady solution is possible (Ouyed & Pudritz, 1999; Anderson et al., 2005).
Since the spectral diagnostics of HH objects indicate shock speeds of a few tens of
km s−1 , it is plausible that they form due to nonlinear steepening and shocking
of wind instabilities.
4.2.6 ORIGINS AND EFFECTS OF OUTFLOWS Overall, the struc-
ture and kinematics of molecular outflows suggest that they are driven by winds
that originate from a range of radii in the disk, with a dense central core (seen
as a jet) surrounded by a lower-density, lower-velocity wide-angle wind. Jet driv-
ing and wind driving of outflows have traditionally been explored separately,
although in practice they would operate in tandem.
Jets drive outflows as bow shocks, with ambient material swept into a thin shell
and carried away from the body of the jet as the shock overtakes and entrains it
(Raga & Cabrit, 1993; Masson & Chernin, 1993), mixing newly shocked material
with material that is already flowing outward (Smith, Suttner, & Yorke, 1997).
The leading bow shock is itself created due to pressure forces at the circumferen-
tial boundary of the working surface at the head of the jet, which drive transverse
flows. Jets with internal shocks can create analogous bow shocks, with the differ-
ence that internal bow shocks would propagate into the wind that surrounds the
jet, whereas the leading bow shock would propagate into the ambient medium.
Leading bow shocks tend to be fairly narrow, because the cooling of shocked gas
in the working surface limits the transverse thrust that can be applied to the shell
(Downes & Ray, 1999). As a consequence, the width of the shell increases only
as the cube root of the distance from the head of the jet (Masson & Chernin,
1993; Ostriker et al., 2001). Thus, bow shocks have difficulty explaining broad
outflows. On the other hand, the “convex spur” velocity features seen in some
systems agree well with the predictions of bow shock models (Lee et al., 2001;
Ostriker et al., 2001).
For wide-angle winds, the momentum flux contained in the transverse bulk
motion of the wind is large compared to the thrust that could be provided by
pressure forces in the shell of shocked (strongly cooling) gas, so that a momentum-
conserving “snowplow” flow is a good approximation. Shu et al. (1991) developed
the “wind-swept shell” model of outflows based on this concept, which was able
to explain the large opening angles seen in most outflows. Li & Shu (1996) and
Matzner & McKee (1999) extended the wind-swept shell analytic model to incor-
porate the characteristic R−2 density stratification and logarithmic collimation
of streamlines of asymptotic wide-angle MHD winds, also allowing for latitudinal
density stratification in the surrounding core. The mass-velocity and position-
velocity relations for these analytic models agree well with those in observed
outflows. Numerical simulations of outflows swept up by wide-angle winds (Lee
84 McKee & Ostriker
et al., 2001; Shang et al., 2006) are in good agreement with the results of analytic
models.
Outflows affect both the immediate environment of the forming star (removing
mass from the core before it can collapse into a disk), the clump in which the
core forms (also removing mass, and injecting energy), and the larger-scale cloud
(injecting energy). The effects of energy injection on clumps forming clusters of
stars, and on GMCs as a whole, are discussed in §4.3.5 and §3.2.2, respectively.
Mass removal by winds is related to the star formation efficiency, as we next
discuss.
The star-formation efficiency ǫ can be defined for individual cores, for star-
forming clumps, or for GMCs. The correspondence between the Core Mass
Function and the IMF has been discussed in §3.3; they are related by the core
star-formation efficiency, ǫcore ≡ m∗ /Mcore . (The individual-star IMF must also
take into account the multiplicity of the stars formed in a given core.) Nakano,
Hasegawa, & Norman (1995) showed that outflows from protostars could reverse
the infall and determine ǫcore ; they assumed spherical winds and found ǫcore ∼ a
few percent. Matzner & McKee (2000) calculated the dynamics of the outflows
including collimation and obtained ǫcore ∼ 0.25−0.75, depending on the degree of
flattening of the core due to magnetic support. Subsequent observations suggest
ǫcore ≃ 1/5 − 1/3 (§3.3.1), at the low end of this range. They also evaluated
the star-formation efficiency for a star-forming clump, and found typical values
somewhat less than 0.5. The predicted values of ǫcore are inversely proportional
to the momentum per unit mass in the outflow, pw /m∗ ; they are consistent with
observation for pw /m∗ ∼ 40 km s−1 as assumed, but not if pw /m∗ is much smaller
(see §3.2.2 for a discussion of the values of pw inferred from observation). Both
Nakano, Hasegawa, & Norman (1995) and Matzner & McKee (2000) found that
ǫcore is only weakly dependent on the core mass, so that the CMF and the IMF
should be similar in shape, as observed (§3.3).
4.3 High-Mass Star Formation

High-mass protostars are characterized by Kelvin-Helmholtz times less than the
accretion time, so that they undergo nuclear burning while still accreting (§4.1).
This leads to two powerful feedback effects that do not apply to low-mass pro-
tostars, radiation pressure and photoionization (Larson & Starrfield, 1971). Fur-
thermore, high-mass protostars tend to form in dense clusters, so that interaction
with other protostars and newly formed stars may be important in their evolu-
tion. Drawing on the review of Beuther et al. (2007) we first summarize work on
infall onto high-mass protostars and then discuss the feedback effects.
4.3.1 Protostellar Infall High-mass star formation is generally taken
to be a scaled up version of low-mass star formation: The accretion rate is ṁ∗ ∼
c3eff /G, where the effective sound speed ceff includes the effects of thermal gas
pressure, magnetic pressure, and turbulence (Stahler et al. 1980, although they
did not address the issue of high-mass star formation). As discussed in §4.1, there
may be a numerical factor of a few in front of the c3eff /G. Wolfire & Cassinelli
(1987) found that accretion rates of order 10−3 M⊙ yr−1 are needed to overcome
the effects of radiation pressure for the highest stellar masses, and attributed
this to the high values of ceff in high-mass star forming regions. Myers & Fuller
(1992) used their “TNT” model (§2.2) to infer formation times for (10 − 30) M⊙
stars of (6 − 10) × 105 yr; the turbulent envelopes allow equilibrium cores to have
greater densities and shorter collapse times than those supported by thermal
pressure alone. Caselli & Myers (1995) extended this to more massive stars and
found formation times > 106 yr for stars of 100 M⊙ , a significant fraction of the
main sequence lifetime. On the other hand, by modeling the spectral energy
distributions (SEDs) of high-mass protostars, Osorio, Lizano, & D’Alessio (1999)
inferred that high-mass stars form in somewhat less than 105 yr, and favored a
logatropic model for the density distribution of the core. Nakano et al. (2000)
inferred an accretion rate of 10−2 M⊙ yr−1 (corresponding to a formation time of
a few thousand years) for the source IRc2 in Orion based on the assumption that
the accretion rate is ∼ 10c3eff /G, with the effective sound speed ceff determined
from the observed line width.
The turbulent core model for high-mass star formation (McKee & Tan, 2002,
2003) follows from the assumption that such stars form in turbulent, gravitation-
ally bound cores (virial parameter αvir ∼ 1). The turbulence is self-similar on
all scales above the Bonnor-Ebert scale, where thermal pressure dominates. The
star-forming clump and the protostellar cores within it are assumed to be cen-
trally concentrated so that the pressure and density have a power-law dependence
on radius, P ∝ r −kP , ρ ∝ r −kρ . It follows that the cores are polytropes (§2.2),
and since the Bonnor-Ebert scale is small, the cores are approximately singular.
The protostellar infall rate is determined by the surface density of protostellar
core, which in turn is comparable to that of the clump in which it is embedded.
The regions of high-mass star formation studied by Plume et al. (1997) have sur-
face densities Σcl ∼ 1 g cm−2 , corresponding to visual extinctions AV ∼ 200 mag;
these values are similar to those for observed star clusters in the Galaxy (e.g.,
∼ 0.2 g cm−2 in the Orion Nebula Cluster, 0.8 g cm−2 for the median globular
cluster and ∼ 4 g cm−2 in the Arches Cluster). By contrast, regions of low-mass
star formation have Σ ∼ 0.03 g cm−2 , corresponding to AV ∼ 7 mag (Onishi et
al., 1996). The radius of a protostellar core is
Mcore 1/2
1/2
m∗f 1
Rcore = ≃ 0.06 1/2
pc, (51)
πΣcore 60ǫcore M⊙ Σcl
where m∗f is the final stellar mass. The second expression is based on the result
that the surface density of a typical core is comparable to that of the clump in
which it is embedded; cores near the center of a clump have higher surface densi-
ties, and the sizes are correspondingly smaller. Using the results of McLaughlin
& Pudritz (1997) for the inside-out collapse of a singular polytrope and adopting
kρ = 32 , a typical density power law from Plume et al. (1997), McKee & Tan
(2003) found that the typical infall rate and the corresponding time to form a
star of mass m∗f are
3/4
m∗ 0.5

−3 m∗f 3/4
ṁ∗ ≃ 0.5 × 10 Σcl M⊙ yr−1 , (52)
60ǫcore M⊙ m∗f
1/4
m∗f −3/4
t∗f ≃ 1.3 × 105 Σcl yr, (53)
60ǫcore M⊙
where Σcl is the surface density (in g cm−2 ) of the several thousand M⊙ clump
in which the star is forming. For typical values of Σcl ∼ 1 g cm−2 , the star
formation time is of order 105 yr and the infall rate is of order 10−3 M⊙ yr−1 .
This infall rate is large enough to overcome the effects of radiation pressure at the
86 McKee & Ostriker
dust destruction front, thereby addressing one of the key theoretical difficulties
for models of high-mass star formation (see below). The mean infall rate could
be somewhat larger than given in equation (52) if the core was initially overdense
or contracting, and turbulence in the core could generate large fluctuations in the
infall rate. However, the infall rate given above is only a few times greater than
the free-fall value and is unlikely to be much larger.
The key assumptions in this model are that stars form from pre-assembled
cores (although since the cores are turbulent, there will be significant mass ex-
change with the ambient medium); that the cores and the clumps in which they
are embedded are in approximate virial equilibrium; and that they are magneti-
cally supercritical, so that the magnetic field does not significantly limit the rate
of accretion. Evidence in support of the first assumption has been obtained by
Beuther, Sridharan, & Saito (2005) and Sridharan et al. (2005); the remaining
assumptions are also subject to observational test. The model is necessarily ap-
proximate, since it treats the turbulence as a local pressure (the microturbulent
approximation), and since it incorporates all the feedback effects due to radia-
tion pressure and photoevaporation in the core star formation efficiency, ǫcore ,
which was assumed to be of order 1/2. Some of the large density fluctuations
in the supersonically turbulent cores will form low-mass stars, but most of the
mass of the core is assumed to go into one or two massive stars. Dobbs, Bon-
nell, & Clark (2005) have criticized the model on the ground that the massive
cores would fragment and form many low-mass stars rather than a single massive
star, but radiative heating by the rapidly accreting high-mass protostar strongly
suppresses fragmentation (Krumholz, 2006; Krumholz, Klein, & McKee, 2007).
The turbulent core model is consistent with the correspondence between the core
mass function and the IMF (§3.3), and it naturally allows for the disks and winds
associated with high-mass stars (see §4.2) since it is an extrapolation of low-mass
star formation theory. The cores are predicted to be denser than the clump in
which they are embedded by about (Mclump /Mcore )1/2 , which is much greater
than unity for stellar mass cores embedded in clumps with M > 103 M⊙ ; this
naturally overcomes the crowding problem.
An alternative class of gravitational collapse models involves rapidly acceler-
ating accretion (ṁ∗ ∝ mq∗ with q > 1, so that m∗ → ∞ in a finite time in the
absence of other effects). Building on the work of Norberg & Maeder (2000),
Behrend & Maeder (2001) assumed that the accretion rates are proportional to
the mass outflow rates observed in protostellar outflows; since the outflows are
swept-up material, the justification for this assumption is unclear. They found
t∗f ∼ 3 × 105 yr for massive stars, with most of the growth occurring in the
last 10% of this time. In the competitive accretion model (Bonnell et al., 1997;
see §4.1.2), massive stars form via Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion (ṁ∗ ∝ m2∗ ).
Keto (2002, 2003) has studied this model further, focusing on the associated H II
regions. For a 10 M⊙ star in a typical high-mass star-forming clump observed
by Plume et al. (1997), which has a mass ∼ 4000M⊙ and a virial parameter of
order unity, the Bondi-Hoyle accretion rate is much smaller than that expected
in the turbulent core model (McKee & Tan, 2003), even after allowing for the
turbulent enhancement factor φBH (eq. 47). The rate of Bondi-Hoyle accretion
increases if the virial parameter is small, if the infall occurs onto a cluster of
stars that is much more massive than a single star (as Keto comments), or if the
infall occurs from a significantly less massive clump. In the latter two cases the
assumptions underlying Bondi-Hoyle accretion begin to break down, and further
study is needed to determine the infall rate. Edgar & Clarke (2004) have shown
that radiation pressure halts Bondi-Hoyle accretion when the star is moving su-
personically relative to the gas for m∗ > 10 M⊙ , since the luminosity is large
enough that radiation pressure deflects gas away from the star.
In view of the challenges facing conventional theories of high-mass star for-
mation, Bonnell, Bate, & Zinnecker (1998) made the radical suggestion that
high-mass stars form via stellar collisions. This model requires stellar densities
∼ 108 stars pc−3 during the brief period in which the stars grow by merging. This
coalescence model produces an IMF that is in qualitative agreement with obser-
vations, although no feedback effects were included in the calculations (Bonnell
et al., 2001b). This model faces a number of challenges: (1) The required stellar
density is far greater than has been observed in any Galactic star cluster. For
example, W3 IRS5 is one of the densest clusters observed to date, with 5 proto
OB stars in a sphere of radius 0.015 pc (Megeath, Wilson, & Corbin, 2005); the
corresponding stellar density ∼ 4 × 105 pc−3 is lower than required by the coales-
cence model by more than 2 orders of magnitude, although it must be borne in
mind that the number of lower mass stars in that volume is currently unknown.
(2) For large OB protoclusters, the hypothesized ultra-dense state would pro-
duce a very luminous, compact source, yet this has never been observed. (3) The
mass loss that is hypothesized to reduce the cluster density to observed values
must be finely tuned in order to leave the cluster marginally bound. (4) Finally,
it is difficult to see how the model could account for observed associated disks
and outflows (§§4.2.1, 4.2.4) above. Bally & Zinnecker (2005) discuss a number
of observational tests of the coalescence model, and suggest that the wide-angle
outflow from OMC-1 in the Orion molecular cloud could be due to the merger
of two protostars that released 1048 − 1049 erg. Two variants of the coalescence
model have been suggested: Stahler, Palla, & Ho (2000) proposed that gas bound
to the protostars could increase the cross section for collisions, although they did
not explain why this would result in stellar coalescence rather than the forma-
tion of a binary. Bonnell & Bate (2005) have proposed an explanation for this:
assuming that the gas has negligible angular momentum (which is plausible if
the turbulence is weak, as assumed in the competitive accretion model), then
accretion drives the stars in the binary to closer separations and ultimately to a
merger. The stellar density required for the binary coalescence model is ∼ 3× 106
stars pc−3 , substantially smaller than in the direct coalescence model but higher
than observed nonetheless. On the other hand, Krumholz & Thompson (2007)
argue that pre-main sequence evolution of tight, high-mass protostellar binaries
can lead to equal mass binaries, as often observed, rather than to mergers.
4.3.2 Observations of high-mass protostars Beuther et al. (2007)
have summarized the current state of observations of high-mass star formation.
They divide the formation of individual high-mass stars into four stages:
1. High-Mass Starless Cores (HMSCs)
2. High-Mass Cores harboring accreting Low/Intermediate-Mass Protostar(s)
destined to become high-mass star(s)
3. High-Mass Protostellar Objects (HMPOs), with m∗ & 8M⊙
4. Final Stars
The earliest stages of high-mass star formation may occur in the Infrared Dark
Clouds (IRDCs–Egan et al., 1998), which have properties consistent with being
88 McKee & Ostriker
the dense clumps out of which clusters eventually form (Simon et al., 2006).
To date, few true HMSCs have been detected—high-mass cores often appear to
have some signatures of star formation. In the turbulent core model, this could
be because the central densities in the cores are much greater than the mean
densities (in contrast to the case for low-mass cores), and the time scale for
gravitational collapse is correspondingly shorter. The lack of true HMSCs is also
consistent with the competitive accretion model or the coalescence model, since
in these models HMSCs do not exist. Evidence for High-Mass Cores harboring
low/intermediate mass protostars, or possibly relatively low-mass HMPOs, has
been obtained only recently (Beuther, Sridharan, & Saito, 2005; Sridharan et
al., 2005). HMPOs are often (but not always) associated with Hot Molecular
Cores (HMCs), which have a rich chemistry (van der Tak, 2005). HMPOs are
often associated with H2 O and Class II CH3 OH maser emission, although the
interpretation of this emission remains ambiguous. HMPOs are also associated
with H II regions (see §4.3.4); many should have hypercompact H II regions
and some should be associated with ultra-compact H II regions, but most ultra-
compact HII regions are associated with the final stars.
Observational tests of infall models for high-mass protostars are difficult due
to their large distances (typically & 2 kpc), crowding, large extinctions, and
confounding effects of H II regions. Several tests are possible: if confirmed,
the correspondence between the core mass function and the IMF (§3.3) would
be consistent with the turbulent core model; the properties of disks and winds
associated with HMPOs can provide important clues (§4.2.1); the spectral energy
distributions (SEDs) of embedded sources provide information on the distribution
of circumstellar matter on scales smaller than can be directly resolved (Osorio,
Lizano, & D’Alessio, 1999; Chakrabarti & McKee, 2005; Whitney et al., 2005);
and chemical clocks can provide direct measures of the time scale for the growth
of HMPOs. To this end, Doty, van Dishoeck, & Tan (2006) have developed the
first model for the chemical evolution of an HMPO, including the evolution of the
central source, infall, and adsorption and desorption of ices from grains. They
find that the time scale for the warm chemistry is set by the time it takes for
matter to flow through the warm region, and that the total age of the HMPO
they study (AFGL 2591) is (0.3 − 1) × 105 yr.
4.3.3 Forming stars in the presence of radiation pressure One
measure of the importance of radiation pressure is to compare the stellar lumi-
nosity with the luminosity at which the force due to radiation pressure balances
gravity. Since dust provides the dominant opacity to non-ionizing radiation in
the interstellar medium, this generalized Eddington luminosity is
4πcGm∗
LE, d = , (54)
κd
where κd is the dust opacity per unit mass, and c is the speed of light. The dust
in the infalling gas sublimates when it reaches the dust destruction front at r =
Rdd ≃ 1.2 × 1015 (L/105 L⊙ )1/2 cm (Wolfire & Cassinelli, 1987). We approximate
the radiation field outside Rdd as a blackbody with a temperature T that declines
with radius. As an example, consider the Pollack et al. (1994) dust model: κd (T )
first rises with temperature as the average frequency increases, but then declines
for T & 600 K as some of the grain species sublimate. The maximum opacity is
κ ≃ 8 cm2 g−1 , which leads to LE, d ≃ 1600(m∗ /M⊙ ) L⊙ . Since main sequence
stars have luminosities L ≃ 10(m∗ /M⊙ )3 L⊙ for 7 M⊙ . m∗ . 20 M⊙ (inferred
from Arnett, 1996), the infalling gas and dust pass through a region in which the
force due to the infrared radiation exceeds that due to gravity if m∗ & 13 M⊙ .
For somewhat larger masses, the net force is outward over a sufficiently large
region that the infall is stopped. At the dust destruction front, the gas and dust
are exposed to the stellar UV radiation, for which κ ∼ 200 cm2 g−1 . However,
this radiation interacts with the matter only once with this opacity, since it is
emitted in the infrared after absorption; as a result, the condition for the infall to
persist is that its momentum exceed that of the radiation, Ṁin vin > L/c (Larson
& Starrfield, 1971; Kahn, 1974; Wolfire & Cassinelli, 1987). High infall rates
∼ 10−3 M⊙ yr−1 can overcome the UV radiation problem, but not the IR one.
Several mechanisms have been proposed to permit the formation of massive
stars in the face of radiation pressure:
1. Reduced dust opacity: Based on 1D, multifluid calculations of steady flows
with both graphite and silicate grains with a range of sizes, Wolfire &
Cassinelli (1987) found that a reduction in the dust-to-gas ratio of at least
a factor 4 is needed in order for accretion to proceed for stars with m∗ ≥
60M⊙ .
2. Rotation: Nakano (1989) showed that the higher ram pressure associated
with disk accretion helps overcome the UV radiation pressure problem, and
escape of the infrared radiation from the disk alleviates the infrared ra-
diation pressure problem. He found that accretion could continue onto a
100 M⊙ star with an accretion rate as small as 10−4 M⊙ yr−1 , 50 times
smaller than for spherical accretion. Jijina & Adams (1996) showed that
there are a range of conditions for which infrared radiation pressure cannot
halt infall prior to the formation of a disk in the context of the Terebey, Shu,
& Cassen (1984) model for rotating collapse, even for quite massive stars.
Yorke & Sonnhalter (2002) have carried out the most detailed axisymmetric
numerical simulations to date. Using frequency-dependent radiative trans-
fer, they found that radiation pressure limited the maximum stellar mass
that could be formed from a 120 M⊙ core to 43 M⊙ ; they point out that
this is an upper limit, since it did not allow for fragmentation or for the
effects of outflows.
3. Rapid infall: Edgar & Clarke (2003) have shown that radiation pressure be-
comes moot if the protostellar core is sufficiently dense that the protostellar
mass is inside the dust destruction front. The models they considered to
achieve this condition were far from virial equilibrium and had constant
density, which led to very large accretion rates ∼ 10−2 M⊙ yr−1 . However,
models with centrally concentrated initial density profiles (ρ ∝ r −1 ) and
normal dust could not produce stars with m∗ > 16 M⊙ .
4. Beaming: Nakano (1989) pointed out that disks redirect the infrared ra-
diation toward the poles, reducing the radiative force in the plane (Yorke
& Bodenheimer, 1999 termed this the “flashlight effect” and emphasized
its observational importance). Krumholz, McKee, & Klein (2005b) showed
that the cavities produced by outflows from massive stars would allow the
infrared radiation to escape, reducing the the radiation pressure in the in-
falling gas and permitting infall over a substantial range of solid angle.
5. 3D effects: 3D simulations with flux-limited, gray radiative transfer show
that the accreting gas is subject to radiation-driven Rayleigh-Taylor insta-
90 McKee & Ostriker
bilities, which facilitate the escape of the radiation in low column regions
and the accretion of the gas in high column regions (Krumholz, Klein, &
McKee, 2005). There is no evidence that radiation pressure halts the ac-
cretion up to m∗ = 35 M⊙ , a substantially higher mass than was found in
axisymmetric simulations with gray transfer (Yorke & Sonnhalter, 2002).
Turner, Quataert, & Yorke (2007) have shown that the dusty envelopes of
HMPOs are subject to the photon bubble instability, which further pro-
motes infall.
4.3.4 Photoionization feedback: H II regions The H II regions asso-
ciated with HMPOs provide strong feedback on infall and accretion, and may play
a role in defining the maximum stellar mass. They are classified into two types:
Ultra-compact H II (UCHII) regions Rhave diameters (0.01 − 0.1) pc, densities
≥ 104 cm−3 , and emission measures n2e dl ≥ 107 pc cm−6 (Wood & Church-
well, 1989). Hypercompact H II (HCHII) regions have diameters < 0.01 pc with
emission measures ≥ 108 pc cm−6 (Beuther et al., 2007; for a slightly different
definition and a review of both types of H II region, see Hoare et al., 2007).
HCHII regions often appear in tight groups in high-mass star-forming regions,
and they often have broad radio recombination lines with widths that can exceed
100 km s−1 .
The high accretion rates characteristic of HMPOs delay the point at which
the stars reach the main sequence (McKee & Tan, 2003; Krumholz & Thomp-
son, 2007), thereby delaying the time at which the photosphere is hot enough
to produce an H II region. High accretion rates also quench the emission of
ionizing photons once the star has reached the main sequence (Walmsley, 1995).
Close to the star—i.e., inside the gravitational radius rg = Gm∗ /c2i = 3.2 ×
1015 (m∗ /30 M⊙ ) cm, where ci ≃ 10 km s−1 is the isothermal sound speed of
the ionized gas—spherically accreting gas is in free fall, with ρ ∝ r −3/2 . For an
ionizing photon luminosity S, the radius of the HCHII region is
RHCHII = R∗ exp(S/Scr ), (55)
where
2
α(2) ṁ2∗

ṁ∗ 100 M⊙
Scr = = 5.6 × 1050 s−1 , (56)
8πµ2H Gm∗ 10 M⊙ yr−1
−3 m∗
(Omukai & Inutsuka, 2002), where α(2) is the recombination rate to excited states
of hydrogen and where we have replaced the proton mass in their expression with
µH = 2.34 × 10−24 g, the mass per hydrogen nucleus. Provided the accretion
is spherical, the H II region is quenched for S . Scr . If S/Scr is not too large
(. 7), RHCHII is less than rg /2 and the infall velocity at the Stromgren radius
exceeds 2ci , the minimum velocity of an R-critical ionization front; as a result
there is no shock in the accretion flow and the H II region cannot undergo the
classical pressure-driven expansion (Keto, 2002). If the accretion is via a disk,
as is generally expected, then the ionizing photons can escape out of the plane
of the disk, and the H II region will not be trapped (Keto & Wood, 2006; Keto,
2007). Disk accretion is often associated with the production of winds, and
Tan & McKee (2003) have suggested that such winds confine HCHII regions:
the winds clear the gas along the axis, and the ionizing radiation then illumi-
nates the inner surfaces of the winds. If correct, this offers the possibility of
a powerful diagnostic for determining the nature of disk winds associated with
massive stars. van der Tak & Menten (2005) found very compact radio emission
aligned with the outflows in two high-mass protostellar sources, consistent with
this picture. When the ionizing luminosity becomes large enough, however, the
wind will become ionized and the H II region will evolve to a UCHII state. The
ionizing photons will photoevaporate the surface of the disk at a rate of order
ṁevap ∼ few ×10−5 (S/1049 s−1 )1/2 M⊙ yr−1 ; absorption of ionizing photons by
dust can significantly affect this (Hollenbach et al., 1994; Richling & Yorke, 1997).
This mass-loss rate is too small to be important in setting the maximum mass of
the star (although it can be important in primordial star formation—McKee &
Tan, in preparation). Absorption of ionizing photons by dust must also be taken
into account when inferring the ionizing luminosity of the central star from the
properties of the H II region (Dopita et al. 2006 and references therein).
4.3.5 Star Formation in Clusters Most stars are born in clusters (e.g.,
Lada & Lada, 2003; Allen et al., 2007), and this is particularly true of high-mass
stars. The mass distribution of clusters appears to obey a universal power law,
dNcluster /d ln M ∝ M −α , with α ≃ 1. With this distribution, M dNcluster /d ln M =
const: taken together, clusters in each decade of mass have the same total num-
ber of stars. Lada & Lada (2003) find that very young clusters within 2 kpc of
the Sun that are still embedded in their natal molecular clouds obey this power
law for M & 50 M⊙ ; the upper limit of the observed distribution is set by the
largest cluster expected in the area they surveyed. The mass distribution of OB
associations in the Galaxy also has a power-law distribution with α ≃ 1 (McKee
& Williams, 1997); they inferred that the distribution extended from ∼ 50 M⊙ to
2 × 105 M⊙ and could account for all the stars formed in the Galaxy. Kennicutt,
Edgar, & Hodge (1989) found that the luminosity distribution of H II regions
in disk galaxies obeys dN /d ln L ∝ L−1±0.5 , which is consistent with an M −1
distribution since the luminosity is proportional to mass for associations that are
large enough to fully sample the IMF. The distribution of OB associations in
the SMC has α = 1 from the largest associations down to associations with a
single OB star (Oey, King, & Parker, 2004). The star clusters in the “Antennae”
galaxies show α = 1 over the mass range 104 M⊙ < M < 106 M⊙ (Zhang &
Fall, 1999); this is one of the best determined cluster mass functions, and has an
error, including systematic errors, estimated as ±0.1. The mass distributions of
open clusters and globular clusters are also consistent with an M −1 distribution
at birth (Elmegreen & Efremov, 1997). Dowell, Buckalew, & Tan (2006) found
α ≃ 0.9 for clusters in irregular galaxies and α ≃ 0.75 in disk galaxies, but com-
ment that this result could be affected by the low spatial resolution of the data.
The M −1 mass distribution of clusters is intermediate between the high-mass
part of the IMF (M −1.35 ) on the one hand, and the observed mass distribution
of GMCs (M −0.6 ) and the clumps within them (M −0.3 to M −0.7 ; §3.1) on the
other. It is important to understand the origin of the differences among these
power laws, which appear to be real.
The structure of star clusters contains clues to their formation. High-mass
stars in Galactic clusters that are massive enough to contain a number of such
stars are observed or inferred to be segregated toward the center of the cluster.
The large fraction of O stars that are runaways can be naturally explained if they
originate in dense, mass-segregated clusters and undergo dynamical interactions
(Clarke & Pringle, 1992). Hillenbrand & Hartmann (1998) analyzed the spatial
92 McKee & Ostriker
distribution of stars in the Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC) and concluded that
the high-mass stars were born preferentially near the center. Using N -body
simulations, Bonnell & Davies (1998) showed that it takes a relaxation time,
trelax ≃ 0.1(N∗ / ln N∗ )tcross (≃ 14tcross for N∗ = 1000), for high-mass stars to
collect near the center of a cluster due to dynamical interactions. In the case of
the ONC, they argued that significant dynamical mass segregation has occurred,
but not enough to account for the observed central concentration of OB stars;
they concluded that therefore the observed mass segregation is primordial. Tan,
Krumholz, & McKee (2006) suggested both a greater age and a longer crossing
time for the ONC, but the basic conclusion does not change. In NGC 3603,
the most luminous Galactic star cluster that is not heavily obscured, Stolte et
al. (2006) found that the maximum mass of the stars decreases away from the
center of the cluster, with all the most massive stars being quite close to the
center, and again concluded that the segregation is primordial. These arguments
for primordial mass segregation have been weakened by the realization that sub-
clustering in the initial cluster significantly accelerates the rate of dynamical
mass segregation (McMillan, Vesperini, & Portegies Zwart, 2007). In addition,
most estimates do not account for dynamical friction between the stars and the
surrounding gas, which can considerably reduce the mass segregation timescale
(Ostriker, 1999). However, recent observations have reinforced the argument for
primordial mass segregation: Megeath, Wilson, & Corbin (2005) have found a
Trapezium-like cluster in W3 IRS5 that is deeply embedded in molecular gas
and is only half the radius of the ONC. In ρ Oph, Stanke et al. (2006) found
direct evidence for primordial mass segregation by showing that the the core mass
function exhibits mass segregation as well; this also supports the correspondence
between the core mass function and the IMF discussed in §3.3. The cluster
R136 in the LMC appears to be an exception to the rule that high-mass stars
are centrally concentrated, since half the massive stars are located outside the
central core (Stolte et al., 2006).
Only a small fraction of clusters survive as bound clusters to an age of 108 yr;
Lada & Lada (2003) estimate this fraction as 4 − 7%. In order for a cluster
to remain bound, its natal clump must have a high star formation efficiency.
Analytic estimates suggest that if the gas in the clump is removed suddenly,
such as by an H II region, one requires ǫclump > 0.5 in order for the cluster to
remain bound, whereas if the gas is removed gradually, the cluster will expand
adiabatically and lower values suffice (Hills, 1980; Mathieu, 1983). Numerical
calculations show that a fraction of the cluster survives even if the mass ejection
is abrupt (Lada, Margulis, & Dearborn, 1984). Kroupa, Aarseth, & Hurley (2001)
modeled the evolution of the ONC with ǫclump = 0.3 and a sudden mass ejection;
they concluded that 30% of the mass of the ONC would remain bound, and that
it would evolve into a cluster like the Pleiades. Star formation efficiencies in
the embedded clusters in the solar neighborhood are observed to be ≃ 0.1 − 0.3
(Lada & Lada, 2003); since star formation is ongoing in these clusters, the final
value of the star formation efficiency, ǫclump , is near the upper limit of this range.
Matzner & McKee (2000) calculated the star formation efficiency for clumps in
which the mass loss is dominated by protostellar outflows (M . 1 − 3 × 103 M⊙ ).
(Note that the clump star formation efficiency, ǫclump , which is the fraction of
the mass of a clump that goes into a cluster of stars, is distinct from the core
star formation efficiency, ǫcore , which is the fraction of a core mass that goes into
a single or binary star.) They estimated ǫclump ≃ 0.4 for clumps with escape
velocities vesc ≃ 2 km s−1 , comparable to the observed value. The star formation
efficiency is predicted to rise with vesc —i.e., with increasing mass and/or density
of the clump.
The star formation efficiency for larger clusters, ranging up to globular clus-
ters and super star clusters (SSCs; e.g., Ho & Filippenko, 1996) is most likely
determined by the H II regions that form in the clusters. Since globular clusters
are much more centrally concentrated than open clusters that form in the disk
of the Galaxy today, it is likely that their star formation efficiency, ǫclump , was
higher. (Note that a high star-formation efficiency over the life of the clump,
ǫclump , is consistent with a low value of the star-formation efficiency per free-
fall time, ǫff, clump , only if clusters form over a number of free-fall times, and
conversely, cluster formation in 1 − 2 dynamical times requires a relatively high
value of ǫff, clump , – see §3.4.) Using a simple phenomenological model, Elmegreen
& Efremov (1997) showed how ǫclump should increase with both the mass of the
natal clump and its pressure, P ∝ Σ2cl . They point out that high pressures are
naturally produced in merging galaxies, accounting for the large number of super
star clusters seen in such systems. The high surface densities of globular clusters
implies that they necessarily formed in high pressure environments (see also Mc-
Kee & Tan, 2003). High star formation efficiencies are possible in a clump with
embedded H II regions since their destructive effect is significantly reduced in a
clump composed of dense cores (Tan & McKee, 2001; Dale et al., 2005). For suf-
ficiently massive and concentrated clusters, the escape velocity exceeds the sound
speed of ionized gas, and this can further increase the star formation efficiency
(Kroupa & Boily, 2002; Matzner, 2002; Tan & McKee, 2004).
How do stars form in clusters? The natal clumps of embedded clusters in the
solar neighborhood have densities ∼ 104−5 cm−3 and masses ∼ 102−3 M⊙ (Lada
& Lada, 2003), and more broadly distributed high-mass star-forming clumps in
the Galaxy have densities ∼ 105 cm−3 and masses ∼ 103.5 M⊙ (Plume et al.,
1997). These extreme conditions have led to suggestions that the process of
high-mass star formation is qualitatively different from that observed in regions
of low-mass star formation (§4.3.1) or that it is triggered by an external effect. In
a review of triggered star formation, Elmegreen (1992) pointed out that trigger-
ing generally does not affect the star formation efficiency by more than a factor
2. In any case, triggered star formation loses much of its meaning in a theory
of star formation based on turbulence, since in most cases the triggering event is
just a manifestation of the intermittency of the turbulence. The observed corre-
spondence between the core mass function and the IMF (§3.3) and the constancy
of the star formation efficiency per free-fall time (§3.4) suggest a more unified
picture in which stars form via gravitational collapse in a turbulent medium over
most, if not all, the range of observed clustering.
5 OVERVIEW OF THE STAR FORMATION PROCESS

Key goals of a theory of star formation are to predict the rate of star formation
and the distribution of stellar masses on the macroscopic scale, and to predict
the properties of individual stars from the initial conditions on the microscopic
scale. In the past decade, there has been a paradigm shift in the theory from
star formation in a quasistatic medium to star formation that occurs in a super-
sonically turbulent one, and this has led to significant progress on both fronts.
94 McKee & Ostriker
Based on our current understanding, the narrative of star formation contains the
following elements:
• The road to star formation in a disk galaxy like the Milky Way begins when
massive (∼ 107 M⊙ ) bound structures condense out of the diffuse ISM as a
result of gravitational instabilities, frequently initiated within spiral arms.
• The most massive structures (GMAs or HI superclouds) inherit high levels
of internal turbulence from the diffuse ISM, and this combines with self-
gravity to cause fragmentation into GMCs of a range of masses, as well as
clumps within the GMCs.
• The turbulence within GMCs is highly supersonic and approximately Alfvénic.
It imposes a log-normal distribution of densities, and creates a spectrum
of gas condensations over a wide range of spatial scales and masses. This
structure is hierarchical.
• This turbulence damps in about one crossing time, and as yet it is not
understood exactly how, and for how long, the highly intermittent sources
of energy in the interstellar medium (including within GMCs themselves)
can maintain the observed universal level of turbulence in GMCs.
• Spatially-defined structures within GMCs tend to have internal velocity
dispersions that increase with size as σ ∝ ℓ0.5 , which is understood to reflect
the underlying power spectrum scaling expected for supersonic turbulence.
• Some of the densest regions created by turbulence become self-gravitating
cores with masses that are typically of order the Bonnor-Ebert mass. The
distribution of core masses appears to be similar to the initial mass function
(IMF) for stars, and turbulence appears to be important in defining this
distribution.
• These cores are frequently clustered, due to the dominance of large scales
in the turbulent flow. Forming cores sample from the local vorticity of the
turbulence to determine their spins. The rate of core formation can be
estimated based on the turbulent properties of a GMC.
• Dense cores that begin or become magnetically supercritical undergo col-
lapse, first becoming strongly stratified internally. Observations show that
magnetic fields in cores are roughly critical, and this is consistent with
inferred core lifetimes.
• Continued accretion after the collapse of a core can occur if the surrounding
ambient medium has a sufficiently low level of turbulence, but it is not yet
known how much this can increase the masses of stars.
• The collapse of a core leads to the formation of a rotating disk interior to
an accretion shock; significant magnetic flux is lost in this collapse process,
although based on current results this is not enough to account for the small
fluxes observed in stars.
• Disks accrete due to a combination of processes that transport angular mo-
mentum outward; these transport mechanisms include gravitational stresses
when the surface density is high enough, and magnetic stresses when the
ionization is high enough.
• Powerful winds are magnetocentrifugally driven from the surface of cir-
cumstellar disks at a range of radii. The inner portion of the wind, which
arises nearest the central star, becomes collimated into a jet-like flow due
to magnetic hoop stresses.
• The impact of a wide-angle, stratified disk wind on the protostellar core
sweeps up much of the ambient gas into a massive molecular outflow. This
reduces the net efficiency of star formation to ∼ 1/3. The combined action
of many outflows also helps to energize dense, star-cluster-forming clumps.
• Massive stars form from cores that are considerably more massive than
a Bonnor-Ebert mass, and are most likely highly turbulent. Radiation
pressure strongly affects the dynamics of massive star formation, but can
be overcome by the combined action of disk formation, protostellar outflows
and radiation-hydrodynamic instabilities in the accreting gas. It is not clear
whether protostellar feedback determines the maximum mass of the stars
that form.
• Massive, luminous stars ionize their surroundings into HII regions. The
expansion of these regions into ambient gas at ∼ 10 km s−1 energizes GMCs,
contributing to the large-scale turbulent power. However, this process is
difficult to regulate, and can unbind GMCs within a few dynamical crossing
times. By the time they are finally destroyed, GMCs may have lost much
of their original mass by photoevaporation.
• The destruction of GMCs returns almost all of the gas they contain to
the diffuse phase of the ISM, with a mean star formation efficiency over
the cloud lifetime of ∼ 5%. This low efficiency can be understood as a
consequence of the small fraction of mass that is compressed into clumps
dense enough that turbulence does not destroy them before they collapse.
• The return of GMC gas to the diffuse ISM completes the cycle of star
formation, which then begins anew.
The coming decade will test and revise this narrative of star formation, par-
ticularly with the advent of ALMA and JWST and the continued advances in
numerical simulation. Turning this narrative into a quantitative, predictive the-
ory will provide a foundation for addressing many of the outstanding questions
in astrophysics today, ranging from the formation of planets to the evolution of
galaxies and the origin of the elements.
Acknowledgements We are grateful to our expert readers, J. Bally, G. Basri,

S. Basu, E. Bergin, L. Blitz, R. Crutcher, B. Elmegreen, C. Gammie, L. Hart-
mann, M. Heyer, R. Kennicutt, S. Kenyon, M. Krumholz, C. Lada, Z.-Y. Li, C.
Matzner, S. Offner, P. Padoan, J. Tan, E. Vazquez-Semadeni, and E. Zweibel, for
their insightful comments on draft sections of the manuscript, and to our editor,
E. van Dishoeck, for her comments on the entire manuscript. We are also grateful
to C.-F. Lee for his help producing the figure of HH111 and to Nathan Smith
for his help with the figure of the Carina Nebula. The work of CFM and ECO
was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants AST 0606831
and AST 0507315, respectively. In preparing this review, we have relied upon
the search and archive facilities provided by NASA’s Astrophysics Data System
Bibliographic Services.
96 McKee & Ostriker
References
Aalto, S., Hüttemeister, S., Scoville, N. Z., & Thaddeus, P. 1999, ApJ, 522, 165
Adams, F. C., Hollenbach, D., Laughlin, G., & Gorti, U. 2004, ApJ, 611, 360
Adams, F. C., Lada, C. J., & Shu, F. H. 1987, ApJ, 312, 788
Afshordi, N., Mukhopadhyay, B., & Narayan, R. 2005, ApJ, 629, 373
Agertz, O., et al. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0610051
Alexander, R. D., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 2006a, MNRAS, 369, 216
Alexander, R. D., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 2006b, MNRAS, 369, 229
Allen, A., Li, Z.-Y., & Shu, F. H. 2003, ApJ, 599, 363
Allen, A., Shu, F. H., & Li, Z.-Y. 2003, ApJ, 599, 351
Allen, L., Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R., Myers, P. C., Wolk, S., Adams, F. C.,
Muzerolle, J., Young, E., Pipher, J. L. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 361
Alves, J. F., Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2001, Nature, 409, 159
Alves, J., Lombardi, M., & Lada, C. J. 2007, A&A, 462, L17
Anderson, J. M., Li, Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky, R., & Blandford, R. D. 2003, ApJL,
590, L107
Anderson, J. M., Li, Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky, R., & Blandford, R. D. 2005, ApJ, 630,
945
Anderson, J. M., Li, Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky, R., & Blandford, R. D. 2006, ApJL,
653, L33
Andre, P., Belloche, A., Motte, F., & Peretto, N. 2006, A & A, in press
Andre, P., Ward-Thompson, D., & Barsony, M. 1993, ApJ, 406, 122
Andre, P., Ward-Thompson, D., & Barsony, M. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV,
59
Andrews, S. M., & Williams, J. P. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1134
Andrews, S. M., & Williams, J. P. 2007, ApJ, 659, 705
Arce, H. G., & Sargent, A. I. 2006, ApJ, 646, 1070
Arce, H. G., Shepherd, D., Gueth, F., Lee, C.-F., Bachiller, R., Rosen, A., &
Beuther, H. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and
K. Keil (eds.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 951 pp., 2007., p.245-260,
245
Armitage, P. J., Livio, M., & Pringle, J. E. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 705
Arnett, D. 1996, Supernovae and Mucleosynthesis: An Investigation of the His-
tory of Matter, from the Big Bang to the Present, by D. Arnett. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1996.,
Bacciotti, F., & Eislöffel, J. 1999, A&A, 342, 717
Bacciotti, F., Mundt, R., Ray, T. P., Eislöffel, J., Solf, J., & Camezind, M. 2000,
ApJL, 537, L49
Bacciotti, F., Ray, T. P., Mundt, R., Eislöffel, J., & Solf, J. 2002, ApJ, 576, 222
Bachiller, R., & Tafalla, M. 1999, NATO ASIC Proc. 540: The Origin of Stars
and Planetary Systems, 227
Balbus, S. A. 1988, ApJ, 324, 60

Balbus, S. A. 2003, ARAA, 41, 555
Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214
Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1
Balbus, S. A., Hawley, J. F., & Stone, J. M. 1996, ApJ, 467, 76
Ballesteros-Paredes, J. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 443
Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Gazol, A., Kim, J., Klessen, R. S., Jappsen, A.-K., &
Tejero, E. 2006, ApJ, 637, 384
Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Hartmann, L., & Vázquez-Semadeni, E. 1999, ApJ, 527,
285
Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Klessen, R. S., Mac Low, M.-M., & Vazquez-Semadeni,
E. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 63
Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2002, ApJ, 570, 734
Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Vázquez-Semadeni, E., & Scalo, J. 1999, ApJ, 515, 286
Bally, J., Reipurth, B., & Davis, C. J. 2007, Protostars and Planets V,
B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (eds.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson,
951 pp., 2007., p.215-230, 215
Bally, J., Stark, A. A., Wilson, R. W., & Langer, W. D. 1987, ApJL, 312, L45
Bally, J., & Zinnecker, H. 2005, AJ, 129, 2281
Banerjee, R., & Pudritz, R. E. 2006, ApJ, 641, 949
Barranco, J. A., & Goodman, A. A. 1998, ApJ, 504, 207
Barranco, J. A., & Marcus, P. S. 2005, ApJ, 623, 1157
Basu, S. 1997, ApJ, 485, 240
Basu, S. 2000, ApJL, 540, L103
Basu, S., & Mouschovias, T. C. 1994, ApJ, 432, 720
Basu, S., & Mouschovias, T. C. 1995a, ApJ, 452, 386
Basu, S., & Mouschovias, T. C. 1995b, ApJ, 453, 271
Bate, M. R., & Bonnell, I. A. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1201
Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Bromm, V. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 577
Beckwith, S. V. W., Henning, T., & Nakagawa, Y. 2000, Protostars and Planets
IV, 533
Beckwith, S. V. W., & Sargent, A. I. 1991, ApJ, 381, 250
Beckwith, S. V. W., Sargent, A. I., Chini, R. S., & Guesten, R. 1990, AJ, 99, 924
Begelman, M. C., McKee, C. F., & Shields, G. A. 1983, ApJ, 271, 70
Behrend, R., & Maeder, A. 2001, A&A, 373, 190
Bell, K. R., & Lin, D. N. C. 1994, ApJ, 427, 987
Bell, K. R., Lin, D. N. C., Hartmann, L. W., & Kenyon, S. J. 1995, ApJ, 444,
376
Bensch, F., Stutzki, J., & Ossenkopf, V. 2001, A&A, 366, 636
Benson, P. J., & Myers, P. C. 1989, ApJS, 71, 89
98 McKee & Ostriker
Bergin, E. A., Hartmann, L. W., Raymond, J. C., & Ballesteros-Paredes, J. 2004,

ApJ, 612, 921
Bertoldi, F. 1989, ApJ, 346, 735
Bertoldi, F., & McKee, C. F. 1990, ApJ, 354, 529
Bertoldi, F., & McKee, C. F. 1992, ApJ, 395, 140
Beuther, H., Churchwell, E. B., McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2007, Protostars and
Planets V, 165
Beuther, H., & Schilke, P. 2004, Science, 303, 1167
Beuther, H., Schilke, P., Gueth, F., McCaughrean, M., Andersen, M., Sridharan,
T. K., & Menten, K. M. 2002a, A&A, 387, 931
Beuther, H., Schilke, P., Sridharan, T. K., Menten, K. M., Walmsley, C. M., &
Wyrowski, F. 2002b, A&A, 383, 892
Beuther, H., & Shepherd, D. 2005, Cores to Clusters: Star Formation with Next
Generation Telescopes, 105
Beuther, H., Sridharan, T. K., & Saito, M. 2005, ApJL, 634, L185
Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics, (Princeton, NJ, Princeton
University Press)
Biskamp, D. 2003, Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence, by Dieter Biskamp,
pp. 310, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883
Blitz, L. 1993, Protostars and Planets III, 125
Blitz, L., Fukui, Y., Kawamura, A., Leroy, A., Mizuno, N., & Rosolowsky, E.
2007, Protostars and Planets V, 81
Blitz, L., & Rosolowsky, E. 2004, ApJL, 612, L29
Blitz, L., & Rosolowsky, E. 2006, ApJ, 650, 933
Blitz, L., & Shu, F. H. 1980, ApJ, 238, 148
Blitz, L., & Williams, J. P. 1997, ApJL, 488, L145
Bodenheimer, P., Burkert, A., Klein, R. I., & Boss, A. P. 2000, Protostars and
Planets IV, 675
Bodenheimer, P., & Sweigart, A. 1968, ApJ, 152, 515
Bohlin, R. C., Savage, B. D., & Drake, J. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 132
Boissier, S., Prantzos, N., Boselli, A., & Gavazzi, G. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1215
Boissier, S., et al. 2006, ApJS in press (astro-ph/0609071)
Boldyrev, S. 2002, ApJ, 569, 841
Boldyrev, S., Nordlund, Å., & Padoan, P. 2002, ApJ, 573, 678
Boley, A. C., Mejı́a, A. C., Durisen, R. H., Cai, K., Pickett, M. K., & D’Alessio,
P. 2006, ApJ, 651, 517
Bonazzola, S., Heyvaerts, J., Falgarone, E., Perault, M., & Puget, J. L. 1987,
A&A, 172, 293
Bonazzola, S., Perault, M., Puget, J. L., Heyvaerts, J., Falgarone, E., & Panis,
J. F. 1992, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 245, 1
Bondi, H. 1952, MNRAS, 112, 195

Bonnell, I. A., & Bate, M. R. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 915
Bonnell, I. A., & Bate, M. R. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 488
Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 1997, MNRAS, 285,
201
Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 2001a, MNRAS, 323,
785
Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., & Vine, S. G. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 413
Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., & Zinnecker, H. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 93
Bonnell, I. A., Clarke, C. J., Bate, M. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2001b, MNRAS, 324,
573
Bonnell, I. A., Clarke, C. J., & Bate, M. R. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1296
Bonnell, I. A., & Davies, M. B. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 691
Bonnell, I. A., Larson, R. B., & Zinnecker, H. 2007, Protostars and Planets V,
149
Bonnor, W. B. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 351
Bontemps, S., Andre, P., Terebey, S., & Cabrit, S. 1996, A&A, 311, 858
Boss, A. P., Fisher, R. T., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2000, ApJ, 528, 325
Bourke, T. L., Myers, P. C., Robinson, G., & Hyland, A. R. 2001, ApJ, 554, 916
Brandenburg, A., Nordlund, A., Stein, R. F., & Torkelsson, U. 1995, ApJ, 446,
741
Bromm, V., & Larson, R. B. 2004, ARAA, 42, 79
Brunt, C. M. 2003, ApJ, 583, 280
Brunt, C. M., & Heyer, M. H. 2002, ApJ, 566, 276
Burgasser, A. J., Reid, I. N., Siegler, N., Close, L., Allen, P., Lowrance, P., &
Gizis, J. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 427
Burkert, A., & Bodenheimer, P. 2000, ApJ, 543, 822
Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., & Strom, S. E. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, 377
Calvet, N., Muzerolle, J., Briceño, C., Hernández, J., Hartmann, L., Saucedo,
J. L., & Gordon, K. D. 2004, AJ, 128, 1294
Calvet, N., Patino, A., Magris, G. C., & D’Alessio, P. 1991, ApJ, 380, 617
Carr, J. S. 1987, ApJ, 323, 170
Caselli, P., Benson, P. J., Myers, P. C., & Tafalla, M. 2002, ApJ, 572, 238
Caselli, P., & Myers, P. C. 1995, ApJ, 446, 665
Cassen, P., & Moosman, A. 1981, Icarus, 48, 353
Ceccarelli, C., Haas, M. R., Hollenbach, D. J., & Rudolph, A. L. 1997, ApJ, 476,
771
Cesaroni, R. 2005, Ap&SS, 295, 5
Cesaroni, R., Galli, D., Lodato, G., Walmsley, C. M., & Zhang, Q. 2007, Proto-
stars and Planets V, 197
Chabrier, G. 2005, ASSL Vol. 327: The Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later, 41
100 McKee & Ostriker
Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Selsis, F., Barman, T. S., Hennebelle, P., & Alibert, Y.
Chagelishvili, G. D., Zahn, J.-P., Tevzadze, A. G., & Lominadze, J. G. 2003,
A&A, 402, 401
Chakrabarti, S., & McKee, C. F. 2005, ApJ, 631, 792
Chandran, B. D. G. 2004, Ap&SS, 292, 17
Chandrasekhar, S. 1939, An Introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure,
(Chicago, Ill., The University of Chicago press) [1939],
Chandrasekhar, S. 1949, ApJ, 110, 329
Chandrasekhar, S. 1951a, Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 210, 18
Chandrasekhar, S. 1951b, Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 210, 26
Chandrasekhar, S., & Fermi, E. 1953a, ApJ, 118, 113
Chandrasekhar, S., & Fermi, E. 1953b, ApJ, 118, 116
Chappell, D., & Scalo, J. 2001, ApJ, 551, 712
Chernin, A. D., Efremov, Y. N., & Voinovich, P. A. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 313
Chiang, E. I., & Goldreich, P. 1997, ApJ, 490, 368
Chieze, J. P. 1987, A&A, 171, 225
Cho, J., & Lazarian, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 325
Cho, J., Lazarian, A., & Vishniac, E. T. 2002a, ApJ, 564, 291
Cho, J., Lazarian, A., & Vishniac, E. T. 2002b, ApJL, 566, L49
Cho, J., & Vishniac, E. T. 2000, ApJ, 539, 273
Ciolek, G. E., & Basu, S. 2000, ApJ, 529, 925
Ciolek, G. E., & Koenigl, A. 1998, ApJ, 504, 257
Ciolek, G. E., & Mouschovias, T. C. 1994, ApJ, 425, 142
Clark, P. C., Bonnell, I. A., Zinnecker, H., & Bate, M. R. 2005, MNRAS, 359,
809
Clarke, C. J., Gendrin, A., & Sotomayor, M. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 485
Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 423
Contopoulos, I., Ciolek, G. E., & Königl, A. 1998, ApJ, 504, 247
Crutcher, R. M. 1999, ApJ, 520, 706
Crutcher, R. M. 2005, AIP Conf. Proc. 784: Magnetic Fields in the Universe:
From Laboratory and Stars to Primordial Structures., 784, 129
Cunningham, A. J., Frank, A., Quillen, A. C., & Blackman, E. G. 2006, ApJ,
653, 416
Curry, C. L., & McKee, C. F. 2000, ApJ, 528, 734
Dale, J. E., Bonnell, I. A., Clarke, C. J., & Bate, M. R. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 291
D’Alessio, P., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., Franco-Hernández, R., & Servı́n, H.
2006, ApJ, 638, 314
D’Alessio, P., Canto, J., Calvet, N., & Lizano, S. 1998, ApJ, 500, 411
Dalgarno, A. 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 103, 12269
Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, ApJ, 547, 792
de Blok, W. J. G., & Walter, F. 2006, AJ, 131, 363
Delamarter, G., Frank, A., & Hartmann, L. 2000, ApJ, 530, 923
Del Zanna, L., Velli, M., & Londrillo, P. 2001, A&A, 367, 705
Desch, S. J. 2004, ApJ, 608, 509
Desch, S. J., & Mouschovias, T. C. 2001, ApJ, 550, 314
Dib, S., Kim, J., Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Burkert, A., & Shadmehri, M. 2007,
ApJ, 661, 262
Dickey, J. M., & Lockman, F. J. 1990, ARAA, 28, 215
di Francesco, J., Evans, N. J., II, Caselli, P., Myers, P. C., Shirley, Y., Aikawa,
Y., & Tafalla, M. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 17
Dobbs, C. L., Bonnell, I. A., & Clark, P. C. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 2
Dopita, M. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 788
Doppmann, G. W., Greene, T. P., Covey, K. R., & Lada, C. J. 2005, AJ, 130,
1145
Doty, S. D., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Tan, J. C. 2006, A&A, 454, L5
Dowell, J. D., Buckalew, B. A., & Tan, J. C. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,
arXiv:astro-ph/0611586
Downes, T. P., & Ray, T. P. 1999, A&A, 345, 977
Downes, D., & Solomon, P. M. 1998, ApJ, 507, 615
Draine, B. T., & McKee, C. F. 1993, ARAA, 31, 373
Draine, B. T., Roberge, W. G., & Dalgarno, A. 1983, ApJ, 264, 485
Dubrulle, B. 1994, Physical Review Letters, 73, 959
Duchêne, G., Delgado-Donate, E., Haisch, K. E., Jr., Loinard, L., & Rodrı́guez,
L. F. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 379
Dullemond, C. P., & Dominik, C. 2004, A&A, 421, 1075
Dullemond, C. P., Hollenbach, D., Kamp, I., & D’Alessio, P. 2007, Protostars and
Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (eds.), University of Arizona
Press, Tucson, p. 555
Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 485
Durisen, R. H., Boss, A. P., Mayer, L., Nelson, A. F., Quinn, T., & Rice, W. K. M.
2007, Protostars and Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (eds.),
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, p.607
Ebert, R. 1957, Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 42, 263
Edgar, R., & Clarke, C. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 962
Edgar, R., & Clarke, C. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 678
Egan, M. P., Shipman, R. F., Price, S. D., Carey, S. J., Clark, F. O., & Cohen,
M. 1998, ApJL, 494, L199
Eisloffel, J., Mundt, R., Ray, T. P., & Rodriguez, L. F. 2000, Protostars and
Planets IV, 815
Elmegreen, B. G. 1979, ApJ, 231, 372
Elmegreen, B. G. 1982, ApJ, 253, 634
Elmegreen, B. G. 1982, ApJ, 253, 655
Elmegreen, B. G. 1987, ApJ, 312, 626
Elmegreen, B. G. 1989, ApJ, 338, 178
Elmegreen, B. G. 1990, ApJ, 357, 125
Elmegreen, B. 1992, Star Formation in Stellar Systems, 381
Elmegreen, B. G. 1993a, ApJ, 411, 170
Elmegreen, B. G. 1993b, Protostars and Planets III, 97
Elmegreen, B. G. 1994, ApJ, 433, 39
Elmegreen, B. G. 1995, Molecular Clouds and Star Formation, 149
Elmegreen, B. G. 1999, ApJ, 515, 323
Elmegreen, B. G. 1999, ApJ, 527, 266
Elmegreen, B. G. 2000, ApJ, 530, 277
Elmegreen, B. G. 2000, ApJ, 539, 342
Elmegreen, B. G. 2001, ASP Conf. Ser. 243: From Darkness to Light: Origin and
Evolution of Young Stellar Clusters, 243, 255
Elmegreen, B. G. 2002, ApJ, 577, 206
Elmegreen, B. G. 2003, Ap&SS, 284, 819
Elmegreen, B. G., & Efremov, Y. N. 1997, ApJ, 480, 235
Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 1978, ApJ, 220, 1051
Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 1983, MNRAS, 203, 31
Elmegreen, B. G., & Elmegreen, D. M. 1987, ApJ, 320, 182
Elmegreen, B. G., & Falgarone, E. 1996, ApJ, 471, 816
Elmegreen, B. G., & Parravano, A. 1994, ApJLetters, 435, L121
Elmegreen, B. G., & Scalo, J. 2004, ARAA, 42, 211
Elmegreen, D. M. 1980, ApJ, 242, 528
Elmegreen, D. M., Elmegreen, B. G., Kaufman, M., Sheth, K., Struck, C.,
Thomasson, M., & Brinks, E. 2006, ApJ, 642, 158
Engargiola, G., Plambeck, R. L., Rosolowsky, E., & Blitz, L. 2003, ApJS, 149,
343
Enoch, M. L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 293
Falgarone, E., & Passot, T. 2003, LNP Vol. 614: Turbulence and Magnetic Fields
in Astrophysics
Falgarone, E., Puget, J.-L., & Perault, M. 1992, A&A, 257, 715
Fatuzzo, M., & Adams, F. C. 2002, ApJ, 570, 210
Fatuzzo, M., Adams, F. C., & Myers, P. C. 2004, ApJ, 615, 813
Fendt, C. 2006, ApJ, 651, 272
Ferguson, A. M. N., Wyse, R. F. G., Gallagher, J. S., & Hunter, D. A. 1998,
ApJL, 506, L19
Fiedler, R. A., & Mouschovias, T. C. 1993, ApJ, 415, 680
Fiege, J. D., & Pudritz, R. E. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 85
Field, G. B., & Saslaw, W. C. 1965, ApJ, 142, 568
Figer, D. F. 2005, Nature, 434, 192
Fisher, R. T. 2004, ApJ, 600, 769
Fleck, R. C., Jr. 1996, ApJ, 458, 739
Font, A. S., McCarthy, I. G., Johnstone, D., & Ballantyne, D. R. 2004, ApJ, 607,
890
Foster, P. N., & Chevalier, R. A. 1993, ApJ, 416, 303
Foster, J. B., & Goodman, A. A. 2006, ApJL, 636, L105
Franco, J. 1983, ApJ, 264, 508
Franco, J., & Cox, D. P. 1983, ApJ, 273, 243
Frisch, U. 1995, Turbulence. The legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press
Frisch, U., & Bec, J. 2001, in New trends in turbulence. Editors: M. Lesieur,
A. Yaglom, F. David, Les Houches Summer School, vol. 74, p.341
Fromang, S., Terquem, C., & Balbus, S. A. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 18
Furuya, R. S., Kitamura, Y., & Shinnaga, H. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1369
Galli, D., Lizano, S., Shu, F. H., & Allen, A. 2006, ApJ, 647, 374
Galli, D., & Shu, F. H. 1993a, ApJ, 417, 220
Galli, D., & Shu, F. H. 1993b, ApJ, 417, 243
Gammie, C. F. 1996, ApJ, 457, 355
Gammie, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 553, 174
Gammie, C. F., & Johnson, B. M. 2005, ASP Conf. Ser. 341: Chondrites and the
Protoplanetary Disk, 341, 145
Gammie, C. F., Lin, Y.-T., Stone, J. M., & Ostriker, E. C. 2003, ApJ, 592, 203
Gao, Y., & Solomon, P. M. 2004, ApJ, 606, 271
Gardiner, T. A., Frank, A., & Hartmann, L. 2003, ApJ, 582, 269
Gehman, C. S., Adams, F. C., Fatuzzo, M., & Watkins, R. 1996, ApJ, 457, 718
Ghosh, S., & Goldstein, M. L. 1994, JGR, 99, 13351
Girart, J. M., Rao, R., & Marrone, D.P. 2006, Science, 313. 812
Glassgold, A. E., Najita, J., & Igea, J. 1997, ApJ, 480, 344
Glover, S. C. O., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1317
Goldreich, P., & Kylafis, N. D. 1981, ApJL, 243, L75
Goldreich, P., & Lynden-Bell, D. 1965, MNRAS, 130, 97
Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 1995, ApJ, 438, 763
Goldsmith, P. F., & Li, D. 2005, ApJ, 622, 938

Goldstein, M. L. 1978, ApJ, 219, 700
Goodman, A. A., Barranco, J. A., Wilner, D. J., & Heyer, M. H. 1998, ApJ, 504,
223
Goodman, A. A., Benson, P. J., Fuller, G. A., & Myers, P. C. 1993, ApJ, 406,
528
Goodwin, S. P., Hubber, D. A., Moraux, E., & Whitworth, A. P. 2005, As-
tronomische Nachrichten, 326, 1040
Goodwin, S. P., & Kroupa, P. 2005, A&A, 439, 565
Goodwin, S. P., Kroupa, P., Goodman, A., & Burkert, A. 2007, Protostars and
Planets V, 133
Goodwin, S. P., & Whitworth, A. 2007, A&A, 466, 943
Gregersen, E. M., Evans, N. J., II, Zhou, S., & Choi, M. 1997, ApJ, 484, 256
Gregersen, E. M., Evans, N. J., II, Mardones, D., & Myers, P. C. 2000, ApJ, 533,
440
Grenier, I. A., Casandjian, J.-M., & Terrier, R. 2005, Science, 307, 1292
Gueth, F., & Guilloteau, S. 1999, A&A, 343, 571
Gullbring, E., Hartmann, L., Briceno, C., & Calvet, N. 1998, ApJ, 492, 323
Haisch, K. E., Jr., Lada, E. A., & Lada, C. J. 2001, ApJL, 553, L153
Hanasz, M., & Lesch, H. 2000, ApJ, 543, 235
Hardee, P. E. 2004, Ap&SS, 293, 117
Hardee, P. E., & Rosen, A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 204
Hartigan, P., Edwards, S., & Ghandour, L. 1995, ApJ, 452, 736
Hartigan, P., Morse, J. A., & Raymond, J. 1994, ApJ, 436, 125
Hartigan, P., Raymond, J., & Hartmann, L. 1987, ApJ, 316, 323
Hartmann, L., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Bergin, E. A. 2001, ApJ, 562, 852
Hartmann, L., Calvet, N., Gullbring, E., & D’Alessio, P. 1998, ApJ, 495, 385
Hartmann, L., D’Alessio, P., Calvet, N., & Muzerolle, J. 2006, ApJ, 648, 484
Hartmann, L., & Kenyon, S. J. 1996, ARAA, 34, 207
Hatchell, J., Richer, J. S., Fuller, G. A., Qualtrough, C. J., Ladd, E. F., &
Chandler, C. J. 2005, A&A, 440, 151
Haugen, N. E., Brandenburg, A., & Dobler, W. 2004, Phys Rev E, 70, 016308
Hawley, J. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1991, ApJ, 376, 223
Hawley, J. F., Balbus, S. A., & Winters, W. F. 1999, ApJ, 518, 394
Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1995, ApJ, 440, 742
Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1996, ApJ, 464, 690
Hayashi, C., Nakazawa, K., & Nakagawa, Y. 1985, Protostars and Planets II,
1100
Hayashi, M., Ohashi, N., & Miyama, S. M. 1993, ApJL, 418, L71
Heiles, C., & Crutcher, R., 2005, Cosmic Magnetic Fields, ed. R. Wielebinski &
R. Beck (Berlin: Springer), p. 137
Heiles, C., Goodman, A. A., McKee, C. F., & Zweibel, E. G. 1993, Protostars
and Planets III, 279
Heiles, C., & Troland, T. H. 2003, ApJ, 586, 1067
Heiles, C., & Troland, T. H. 2005, ApJ, 624, 773
Heithausen, A., Bensch, F., Stutzki, J., Falgarone, E., & Panis, J. F. 1998, A&A,
331, L65
Heitsch, F., & Burkert, A. 2002, ASP Conf. Ser. 285: Modes of Star Formation
and the Origin of Field Populations, 285, 13
Heitsch, F., Burkert, A., Hartmann, L. W., Slyz, A. D., & Devriendt, J. E. G.
2005, ApJL, 633, L113
Heitsch, F., Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 547, 280
Heitsch, F., Zweibel, E. G., Slyz, A. D., & Devriendt, J. E. G. 2004, ApJ, 603,
165
Helfer, T. T., Thornley, M. D., Regan, M. W., Wong, T., Sheth, K., Vogel, S. N.,
Blitz, L., & Bock, D. C.-J. 2003, ApJS, 145, 259
Hennebelle, P., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2006, ApJ, 647, 404
Hernandez, J., et al. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0701476
Heyer, M. H., & Brunt, C. M. 2004, ApJL, 615, L45
Heyer, M. H., Carpenter, J. M., & Snell, R. L. 2001, ApJ, 551, 852
Heyer, M. H., Corbelli, E., Schneider, S. E., & Young, J. S. 2004, ApJ, 602, 723
Heyer, M. H., & Terebey, S. 1998, ApJ, 502, 265
Heyer, M. H., Williams, J. P., & Brunt, C. M. 2006, ApJ, 643, 956
Heyvaerts, J., & Norman, C. 1989, ApJ, 347, 1055
Hillenbrand, L. A., & Hartmann, L. W. 1998, ApJ, 492, 540
Hills, J. G. 1980, ApJ, 235, 986
Hirth, G. A., Mundt, R., & Solf, J. 1997, A&A Supp, 126, 437
Ho, L. C., & Filippenko, A. V. 1996, ApJL, 466, L83
Hoare, M. G., Kurtz, S. E., Lizano, S., Keto, E., & Hofner, P. 2007, Protostars
and Planets V, 181
Hollenbach, D., Johnstone, D., Lizano, S., & Shu, F. 1994, ApJ, 428, 654
Hollenbach, D. J., Yorke, H. W., & Johnstone, D. 2000, Protostars and Planets
IV, 401
Hollenbach, D. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1999, Reviews of Modern Physics, 71,
173
Houlahan, P., & Scalo, J. 1992, ApJ, 393, 172
Hoyle, F., & Lyttleton, R. A. 1939, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philisophical
Society, 34, 405
Huff, E. M., & Stahler, S. W. 2006, ApJ, 644, 355
Hujeirat, A., Myers, P., Camenzind, M., & Burkert, A. 2000, New Astronomy, 4,
601
Hunter, C. 1962, ApJ, 136, 594
Hunter, C. 1977, ApJ, 218, 834

Igea, J., & Glassgold, A. E. 1999, ApJ, 518, 848
Jappsen, A.-K., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, A&A, 423, 1
Jappsen, A.-K., Klessen, R. S., Larson, R. B., Li, Y., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2005,
A&A, 435, 611
Jayawardhana, R., Coffey, J., Scholz, A., Brandeker, A., & van Kerkwijk, M. H.
2006, ApJ, 648, 1206
Ji, H., Burin, M., Schartman, E., & Goodman, J. 2006, Nature, 444, 343
Jijina, J., & Adams, F. C. 1996, ApJ, 462, 874
Jijina, J., Myers, P. C., & Adams, F. C. 1999, ApJS, 125, 161
Jin, L. 1996, ApJ, 457, 798
Johnson, B. M., & Gammie, C. F. 2003, ApJ, 597, 131
Johnstone, D., Di Francesco, J., & Kirk, H. 2004, ApJL, 611, L45
Johnstone, D., Fich, M., Mitchell, G. F., & Moriarty-Schieven, G. 2001, ApJ,
559, 307
Johnstone, D., Hollenbach, D., & Bally, J. 1998, ApJ, 499, 758
Johnstone, D., Wilson, C. D., Moriarty-Schieven, G., Joncas, G., Smith, G.,
Gregersen, E., & Fich, M. 2000, ApJ, 545, 327
Jones, C. E., & Basu, S. 2002, ApJ, 569, 280
Jones, C. E., Basu, S., & Dubinski, J. 2001, ApJ, 551, 387
Jørgensen, J. K., Bourke, T. L., Myers, P. C., Schöier, F. L., van Dishoeck, E. F.,
& Wilner, D. J. 2005, ApJ, 632, 973
Kahn, F. D. 1974, A&A, 37, 149
Kaneda, Y., Ishihara, T., Yokokawa, M., Itakura, K., & Uno, A. 2003, Physics of
Fluids, 15, L21
Kandori, R., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 2166
Kenney, J. D. P., Carlstrom, J. E., & Young, J. S. 1993, ApJ, 418, 687
Kennicutt, R. C., Jr. 1989, ApJ, 344, 685
Kennicutt, R. C., Jr. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541
Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., Edgar, B. K., & Hodge, P. W. 1989, ApJ, 337, 761
Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 928
Kenyon, S. J., Calvet, N., & Hartmann, L. 1993, ApJ, 414, 676
Kenyon, S. J., Hartmann, L. W., Strom, K. M., & Strom, S. E. 1990, AJ, 99, 869
Kerton, C. R., Brunt, C. M., Jones, C. E., & Basu, S. 2003, A&A, 411, 149
Keto, E. 2002, ApJ, 580, 980
Keto, E. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1196
Keto, E. 2007, ApJ, accepted (ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-

ph/0603856)
Keto, E., Broderick, A. E., Lada, C. J., & Narayan, R. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1366
Keto, E., & Field, G. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1151
Keto, E., & Wood, K. 2006, ApJ, 637, 850
Kim, C.-G., Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E. C. 2006, ApJL, 649, L13
Kim, J., Hong, S. S., Ryu, D., & Jones, T. W. 1998, ApJL, 506, L139
Kim, J., & Ryu, D. 2005, ApJL, 630, L45
Kim, J., Ryu, D., & Jones, T. W. 2001, ApJ, 557, 464
Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E. C. 2000, ApJ, 540, 372
Kim, W.-T., Ostriker, E. C., & Stone, J. M. 2002, ApJ, 581, 1080
Kim, W.-T., Ostriker, E. C., & Stone, J. M. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1157
Kirk, H., Johnstone, D., & Di Francesco, J. 2006, ApJ, 646, 1009
Kirk, J. M., Ward-Thompson, D., & André, P. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1506
Kitamura, Y., Momose, M., Yokogawa, S., Kawabe, R., Tamura, M., & Ida, S.
2002, ApJ, 581, 357
Klahr, H. 2004, ApJ, 606, 1070
Klein, R. I., Inutsuka, S.-I., Padoan, P., & Tomisaka, K. 2007, Protostars and
Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (eds.), University of Arizona
Press, Tucson, p.99
Klein, R. I., Sandford, M. T., II, & Whitaker, R. W. 1980, Space Science Reviews,
27, 275
Klessen, R. S. 2000, ApJ, 535, 869
Klessen, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 556, 837
Klessen, R. S., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Vázquez-Semadeni, E., & Durán-Rojas,
C. 2005, ApJ, 620, 786
Klessen, R. S., & Burkert, A. 2001, ApJ, 549, 386
Kolmogorov, A.N. 1941, C. R. Acad. Sci. USSR 30, 301
Komugi, S., Sofue, Y., Nakanishi, H., Onodera, S., & Egusa, F. 2005, PASJ, 57,
733
Konigl, A., & Pudritz, R. E. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, 759
Krasnopolsky, R., & Gammie, C. F. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1126
Krasnopolsky, R., & Königl, A. 2002, ApJ, 580, 987
Krasnopolsky, R., Li, Z.-Y., & Blandford, R. D. 2003, ApJ, 595, 631
Kratter, K. M., & Matzner, C. D. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1563
Kravtsov, A. V. 2003, ApJL, 590, L1
Kritsuk, A. G., Norman, M. L., & Padoan, P. 2006, ApJL, 638, L25
Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231
Kroupa, P., Aarseth, S., & Hurley, J. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 699
Kroupa, P., & Boily, C. M. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1188
Kroupa, P., Petr, M. G., & McCaughrean, M. J. 1999, New Astronomy, 4, 495
Krumholz, M. R. 2006, ApJL, 641, L45
Krumholz, M. R., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2005c, IAU Symposium, 227, 231
Krumholz, M. R., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2007, ApJ, 656, 959
Krumholz, M. R., Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 2006, ApJ, 653, 361
Krumholz, M. R., & McKee, C. F. 2005, ApJ, 630, 250
Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Klein, R. I. 2005a, Nature, 438, 332
Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Klein, R. I. 2005b, ApJL, 618, L33
Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Klein, R. I. 2006, ApJ, 638, 369
Krumholz, M. R., Stone, J. M., & Gardiner, T. A. 2006b, ArXiv Astrophysics
e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0606539
Krumholz, M. R., & Tan, J. C. 2007, ApJ, 654, 304
Krumholz, M. R., & Thompson, T. A. 2007, ApJ, submitted (ArXiv Astrophysics
e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0611822)
Kulsrud, R., & Pearce, W. P. 1969, ApJ, 156, 445
Kwan, J. 1979, ApJ, 229, 567
Lada, C. J. 1985, ARAA, 23, 267
Lada, C. J. 1987, IAU Symp. 115: Star Forming Regions, 115, 1
Lada, C. J. 2006, ApJL, 640, L63
Lada, C. J., Alves, J., & Lada, E. A. 1999, ApJ, 512, 250
Lada, C. J., Alves, J. F., & Lombardi, M. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 3
Lada, C. J., Margulis, M., & Dearborn, D. 1984, ApJ, 285, 141
Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARAA, 41, 57
Lada, C. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1574
Langer, W. D., Velusamy, T., Kuiper, T. B. H., Levin, S., Olsen, E., & Migenes,
V. 1995, ApJ, 453, 293
Langer, W. D., van Dishoeck, E. F., Bergin, E. A., Blake, G. A., Tielens,
A. G. G. M., Velusamy, T., & Whittet, D. C. B. 2000, Protostars and Planets
IV, 29
Larson, R. B. 1969, MNRAS, 145, 271
Larson, R. B. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 121
Larson, R. B. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 809
Larson, R. B. 1985, MNRAS, 214, 379
Larson, R. B. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 213
Larson, R.B. 2003, Rept. Prog. Phys. 66, 1651
Larson, R. B. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 211
Larson, R. B., & Starrfield, S. 1971, A&A, 13, 190

Laughlin, G., & Bodenheimer, P. 1994, ApJ, 436, 335
La Vigne, M. A., Vogel, S. N., & Ostriker, E. C. 2006, ApJ, 650, 818
Lazarian, A., & Pogosyan, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 943
Lee, C.-F., Mundy, L. G., Reipurth, B., Ostriker, E. C., & Stone, J. M. 2000,
ApJ, 542, 925
Lee, C.-F., Ho, P. T. P., Hirano, N., Beuther, H., Bourke, T. L., Shang, H., &
Zhang, Q. 2007, ApJ, 659, 499
Lee, C.-F., Mundy, L. G., Stone, J. M., & Ostriker, E. C. 2002, ApJ, 576, 294
Lee, C.-F., Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C., & Mundy, L. G. 2001, ApJ, 557, 429
Lee, C. W., Myers, P. C., & Tafalla, M. 1999, ApJ, 526, 788
Lee, C. W., Myers, P. C., & Tafalla, M. 2001, ApJS, 136, 703
Lepp, S., Dalgarno, A., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Black, J. H. 1988, ApJ, 329, 418
Leung, C. M., & Brown, R. L. 1977, ApJL, 214, L73
Li, H., Griffin, G. S., Krejny, M., Novak, G., Loewenstein, R. F., Newcomb,
M. G., Calisse, P. G., & Chuss, D. T. 2006, ApJ, 648, 340
Li, P. S., Norman, M. L., Mac Low, M.-M., & Heitsch, F. 2004, ApJ, 605, 800
Li, P. S., McKee, C. F., & Klein, R. I. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1280
Li, W., Evans, N. J., II, & Lada, E. A. 1997, ApJ, 488, 277
Li, Y., Klessen, R. S., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2003, ApJ, 592, 975
Li, Y., Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2005, ApJL, 620, L19
Li, Y., Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2005, ApJ, 626, 823
Li, Y., Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2006, ApJ, 639, 879
Li, Z.-Y. 1998, ApJ, 497, 850
Li, Z.-Y., & McKee, C. F. 1996, ApJ, 464, 373
Li, Z.-Y., & Nakamura, F. 2006, ApJL, 640, L187
Li, Z.-Y., & Shu, F. H. 1996, ApJ, 472, 211
Li, Z.-Y., & Shu, F. H. 1997, ApJ, 475, 237
Lin, C. C., Mestel, L., & Shu, F. H. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1431
Lis, D. C., Pety, J., Phillips, T. G., & Falgarone, E. 1996, ApJ, 463, 623
Liszt, H. S. 1993, ApJ, 411, 720
Lithwick, Y. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0702046
Lizano, S., & Shu, F. H. 1989, ApJ, 342, 834
Lodato, G., & Rice, W. K. M. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 630
Lombardi, M., Alves, J., & Lada, C. J. 2006, A&A, 454, 781
Lommen, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 462, 211
Low, C., & Lynden-Bell, D. 1976, MNRAS, 176, 367
Lubow, S. H., Cowie, L. L., & Balbus, S. A. 1986, ApJ, 309, 496
Lucas, R. 1976, A&A, 46, 473
Luhman, K. L., Joergens, V., Lada, C., Muzerolle, J., Pascucci, I., & White, R.
Lundgren, A. A., Wiklind, T., Olofsson, H., & Rydbeck, G. 2004, A&A, 413, 505
Lynden-Bell, D. 1973, in Saas-Fee Advanced Course 3: Dynamical Structure and
Evolution of Stellar Systems, Eds. Contopoulos, G., Henon, M., & Lynden-Bell,
D., p. 115
Lynden-Bell, D., & Pringle, J. E. 1974, MNRAS, 168, 603
Mac Low, M.-M. 1999, ApJ, 524, 169
Mac Low, M.-M., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 125
Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., Burkert, A., & Smith, M. D. 1998, Physical
Review Letters, 80, 2754
Mac Low, M.-M., Norman, M. L., Konigl, A., & Wardle, M. 1995, ApJ, 442, 726
Mac Low, M.-M., & Ossenkopf, V. 2000, A&A, 353, 339
Mac Low, M.-M., Toraskar, J., Oishi, J. S., & Abel, T. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics
e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0605501
Malhotra, S. 1995, ApJ, 448, 138
Maloney, P. 1988, ApJ, 334, 761
Maloney, P. 1990, ApJL, 348, L9
Maloney, P., & Black, J. H. 1988, ApJ, 325, 389
Maret, S., Bergin, E. A., & Lada, C. J. 2006, Nature, 442, 425
Maron, J., & Goldreich, P. 2001, ApJ, 554, 1175
Martin, C. L., & Kennicutt, R. C., Jr. 2001, ApJ, 555, 301
Masson, C. R., & Chernin, L. M. 1993, ApJ, 414, 230
Masunaga, H., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2000, ApJ, 531, 350
Masunaga, H., Miyama, S. M., & Inutsuka, S.-I. 1998, ApJ, 495, 346
Mathieu, R. D. 1983, ApJL, 267, L97
Matsumoto, R., & Tajima, T. 1995, ApJ, 445, 767
Matzner, C. D. 2002, ApJ, 566, 302
Matzner, C. D. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1394
Matzner, C. D., & Levin, Y. 2005, ApJ, 628, 817
Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 1999, Star Formation 1999, Proceedings of
Star Formation 1999, held in Nagoya, Japan, June 21 - 25, 1999, Editor:
T. Nakamoto, Nobeyama Radio Observatory, p. 353-357, 353
Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJL, 526, L109
Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 2000, ApJ, 545, 364
Mayer, L., Quinn, T., Wadsley, J., & Stadel, J. 2004, ApJ, 609, 1045
McCall, B. J., et al. 2003, Nature, 422, 500
McClure-Griffiths, N. M., Dickey, J. M., Gaensler, B. M., Green, A. J., &
Haverkorn, M. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1339
McKee, C. F. 1989, ApJ, 345, 782
McKee, C. F. 1999, NATO ASIC Proc. 540: The Origin of Stars and Planetary
Systems, 29
McKee, C. F., & Holliman, J. H., II 1999, ApJ, 522, 313
McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2002, Nature, 416, 59
McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 585, 850
McKee, C. F., & Williams, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 476, 144
McKee, C. F., & Zweibel, E. G. 1992, ApJ, 399, 551
McKee, C. F., & Zweibel, E. G. 1995, ApJ, 440, 686
McKee, C. F., Zweibel, E. G., Goodman, A. A., & Heiles, C. 1993, Protostars
and Planets III, 327
McLaughlin, D. E., & Pudritz, R. E. 1996, ApJ, 469, 194
McLaughlin, D. E., & Pudritz, R. E. 1997, ApJ, 476, 750
McMillan, S. L. W., Vesperini, E., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2007, ApJL, 655, L45
Megeath, S. T., Wilson, T. L., & Corbin, M. R. 2005, ApJL, 622, L141
Mejı́a, A. C., Durisen, R. H., Pickett, M. K., & Cai, K. 2005, ApJ, 619, 1098
Mellema, G., Arthur, S. J., Henney, W. J., Iliev, I. T., & Shapiro, P. R. 2006,
ApJ, 647, 397
Mestel, L. 1985, Protostars and Planets II, 320
Mestel, L., & Spitzer, L., Jr. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 503
Mestel, L., & Strittmatter, P. A. 1967, MNRAS, 137, 95
Miesch, M. S., & Bally, J. 1994, ApJ, 429, 645
Miller, G. E., & Scalo, J. M. 1979, ApJS, 41, 513
Mizuno, A., Onishi, T., Yonekura, Y., Nagahama, T., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y.
1995, ApJL, 445, L161
Mooney, T. J., & Solomon, P. M. 1988, ApJL, 334, L51
Morfill, G., Spruit, H., & Levy, E. H. 1993, Protostars and Planets III, 939
Motte, F., & André, P. 2001, A&A, 365, 440
Motte, F., Andre, P., & Neri, R. 1998, A&A, 336, 150
Motte, F., André, P., Ward-Thompson, D., & Bontemps, S. 2001, A&A, 372, L41
Mouschovias, T. C. 1976, ApJ, 207, 141
Mouschovias, T. C. 1987, NATO ASIC Proc. 210: Physical Processes in Inter-
stellar Clouds, 453
Mouschovias, T. C., Shu, F. H., & Woodward, P. R. 1974, A&A, 33, 73
Mouschovias, T. C., & Spitzer, L., Jr. 1976, ApJ, 210, 326
Mouschovias, T. C., Tassis, K., & Kunz, M. W. 2006, ApJ, 646, 1043
Müller, W.-C., Biskamp, D., & Grappin, R. 2003, Phys Rev E, 67, 066302
Müller, W.-C., & Grappin, R. 2005, Physical Review Letters, 95, 114502
Murgia, M., Crapsi, A., Moscadelli, L., & Gregorini, L. 2002, A&A, 385, 412
Muzerolle, J., Hartmann, L., & Calvet, N. 1998, AJ, 116, 2965
Muzerolle, J., Hillenbrand, L., Calvet, N., Briceño, C., & Hartmann, L. 2003,
ApJ, 592, 266
Muzerolle, J., Luhman, K. L., Briceño, C., Hartmann, L., & Calvet, N. 2005,
ApJ, 625, 906
Myers, P. C. 2005, ApJ, 623, 280
Myers, P. C., Evans, N. J., II, & Ohashi, N. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, 217
Myers, P. C., & Fuller, G. A. 1992, ApJ, 396, 631
Myers, P. C., Fuller, G. A., Mathieu, R. D., Beichman, C. A., Benson, P. J.,
Schild, R. E., & Emerson, J. P. 1987, ApJ, 319, 340
Myers, P. C., & Ladd, E. F. 1993, ApJL, 413, L47
Myers, P. C., & Lazarian, A. 1998, ApJL, 507, L157
Myers, P. C., Mardones, D., Tafalla, M., Williams, J. P., & Wilner, D. J. 1996,
ApJL, 465, L133
Nagahama, T., Mizuno, A., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y. 1998, AJ, 116, 336
Najita, J.R., Carr, J.S., Glassgold, A.E., & Valenti, J.A. 2006, Protostars and
Planets V, p. 507.
Nakamura, F., & Hanawa, T. 1997, ApJ, 480, 701
Nakamura, F., & Li, Z.-Y. 2005, ApJ, 631, 411
Nakamura, F. N., & Li, Z.-Y. 2007, ApJ, accepted (astro-ph/0703152)
Nakamura, F., & Umemura, M. 2002, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supple-
ment, 147, 99
Nakano, T. 1983, PASJ, 35, 87
Nakano, T. 1989, ApJ, 345, 464
Nakano, T. 1998, ApJ, 494, 587
Nakano, T., Hasegawa, T., & Norman, C. 1995, ApJ, 450, 183
Nakano, T., Hasegawa, T., Morino, J.-I., & Yamashita, T. 2000, ApJ, 534, 976
Nakano, T., & Nakamura, T. 1978, PASJ, 30, 671
Nakano, T., Nishi, R., & Umebayashi, T. 2002, ApJ, 573, 199
Nakano, T., & Umebayashi, T. 1986, MNRAS, 221, 319
Narita, S., Hayashi, C., & Miyama, S. M. 1984, Progress of Theoretical Physics,
72, 1118
Natta, A., Testi, L., Calvet, N., Henning, T., Waters, R., & Wilner, D. 2007,
Protostars and Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (eds.), University
of Arizona Press, Tucson, p.767
Nishi, R., Nakano, T., & Umebayashi, T. 1991, ApJ, 368, 181
Norberg, P., & Maeder, A. 2000, A&A, 359, 1025
Nordlund, Å. K., & Padoan, P. 1999, Interstellar Turbulence, 218
Norman, C., & Silk, J. 1980, ApJ, 238, 158
Norman, M. L., Wilson, J. R., & Barton, R. T. 1980, ApJ, 239, 968
Nutter, D., & Ward-Thompson, D. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1413
Oey, M. S., & Clarke, C. J. 2005, ApJL, 620, L43
Oey, M. S., King, N. L., & Parker, J. W. 2004, AJ, 127, 1632
Ogilvie, G. I. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 969
Ogino, S., Tomisaka, K., & Nakamura, F. 1999, PASJ, 51, 637
Ohashi, N., Hayashi, M., Ho, P. T. P., Momose, M., Tamura, M., Hirano, N., &
Sargent, A. I. 1997, ApJ, 488, 317
Oishi, J. S., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2006, ApJ, 638, 281
Omukai, K., & Inutsuka, S.-i. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 59
Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., Kawamura, A., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y. 1996, ApJ, 465,
815
Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., Kawamura, A., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y. 1998, ApJ, 502,
296
Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., Kawamura, A., Tachihara, K., & Fukui, Y. 2002, ApJ,
575, 950
Osorio, M., Lizano, S., & D’Alessio, P. 1999, ApJ, 525, 808
Ossenkopf, V., Esquivel, A., Lazarian, A., & Stutzki, J. 2006, A&A, 452, 223
Ossenkopf, V., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2002, A&A, 390, 307
Ostriker, E. C. 1997, ApJ, 486, 291
Ostriker, E. C. 1999, ApJ, 513, 252
Ostriker, E. C. 2003, LNP Vol. 614: Turbulence and Magnetic Fields in Astro-
physics, Eds. E. Falgarone, and T. Passot, Springer, p.252
Ostriker, E. C., Gammie, C. F., & Stone, J. M. 1999, ApJ, 513, 259
Ostriker, E. C., Lee, C.-F., Stone, J. M., & Mundy, L. G. 2001, ApJ, 557, 443
Ostriker, E. C., & Shu, F. H. 1995, ApJ, 447, 813
Ostriker, E. C., Stone, J. M., & Gammie, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 546, 980
Ostriker, J. 1964, ApJ, 140, 1056
Ouyed, R., & Pudritz, R. E. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 233
Padoan, P. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 377
Padoan, P., Bally, J., Billawala, Y., Juvela, M., & Nordlund, Å. 1999, ApJ, 525,
318
Padoan, P., Jimenez, R., Nordlund, A., & Boldyrev, S. 2004, Physical Review
Letters, 92, 191102
Padoan, P., Jones, B. J. T., & Nordlund, A. P. 1997, ApJ, 474, 730
Padoan, P., Juvela, M., Kritsuk, A., & Norman, M. L. 2006, ApJL, 653, L125
Padoan, P., Juvela, M., & Pelkonen, V.-M. 2006, ApJL, 636, L101
Padoan, P., Kritsuk, A., Norman, M. L., & Nordlund, Å. 2005, ApJL, 622, L61
Padoan, P., & Nordlund, Å. 1999, ApJ, 526, 279
Padoan, P., Nordlund, A., Kritsuk, A. G., Norman, M. L., & Li, P. S. 2007,
ApJaccepted (astro-ph/0701795)
Padoan, P., Willacy, K., Langer, W., & Juvela, M. 2004, ApJ, 614, 203
Palla, F., & Stahler, S. W. 2000, ApJ, 540, 255
Paresce, F., & De Marchi, G. 2000, ApJ, 534, 870
Parker, E. N. 1966, ApJ, 145, 811
Passot, T., Pouquet, A., & Woodward, P. 1988, A&A, 197, 228
Passot, T., & Vázquez-Semadeni, E. 1998, Phys Rev E, 58, 4501
Penston, M. V. 1969, MNRAS, 144, 425
Pessah, M. E., Chan, C.-k., & Psaltis, D. 2006, MNRASsubmitted (astro-
ph/0612404)
Pichardo, B., Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Gazol, A., Passot, T., & Ballesteros-
Paredes, J. 2000, ApJ, 532, 353
Piontek, R. A., & Ostriker, E. C. 2005, ApJ, 629, 849
Piontek, R. A., & Ostriker, E. C. 2006, ApJ, submitted
Pirogov, L., Zinchenko, I., Caselli, P., Johansson, L. E. B., & Myers, P. C. 2003,
A&A, 405, 639
Plume, R., Jaffe, D. T., Evans, N. J., II, Martin-Pintado, J., & Gomez-Gonzalez,
J. 1997, ApJ, 476, 730
Podio, L., Bacciotti, F., Nisini, B., Eislöffel, J., Massi, F., Giannini, T., & Ray,
T. P. 2006, A&A, 456, 189
Pollack, J. B., Hollenbach, D., Beckwith, S., Simonelli, D. P., Roush, T., & Fong,
W. 1994, ApJ, 421, 615
Pringle, J. E. 1981, ARAA, 19, 137
Pudritz, R. E. 2004, Accretion Discs, Jets and High Energy Phenomena in As-
trophysics, 187
Pudritz, R. E., & Norman, C. A. 1983, ApJ, 274, 677
Pudritz, R. E., Ouyed, R., Fendt, C., & Brandenburg, A. 2007, Protostars and
Planets V, 277
Pudritz, R. E., Rogers, C. S., & Ouyed, R. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1131
Pyo, T.-S., Hayashi, M., Naoto, K., Terada, H., & Tokunaga, A. T. 2005, Journal
of Korean Astronomical Society, 38, 249
Quillen, A. C., Thorndike, S. L., Cunningham, A., Frank, A., Gutermuth, R. A.,
Blackman, E. G., Pipher, J. L., & Ridge, N. 2005, ApJ, 632, 941
Quirk, W. J. 1972, ApJL, 176, L9
Rafikov, R. R. 2005, ApJL, 621, L69
Raga, A., & Cabrit, S. 1993, A&A, 278, 267
Rand, R. J., Lord, S. D., & Higdon, J. L. 1999, ApJ, 513, 720
Ray, T., Dougados, C., Bacciotti, F., Eislöffel, J., & Chrysostomou, A. 2007,
Protostars and Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (eds.), University
of Arizona Press, Tucson, 951 pp., 2007., p.231-244, 231
Reid, I. N., & Gizis, J. E. 1997, AJ, 113, 2246
Reid, M. A., & Wilson, C. D. 2005, ApJ, 625, 891

Reipurth, B., & Bally, J. 2001, ARAA, 39, 403
Reipurth, B., & Clarke, C. 2001, AJ, 122, 432
Reipurth, B., Yu, K. C., Rodrı́guez, L. F., Heathcote, S., & Bally, J. 1999, A&A,
352, L83
Rice, W. K. M., Lodato, G., & Armitage, P. J. 2005, MNRAS, 364, L56
Richer, J. S., Shepherd, D. S., Cabrit, S., Bachiller, R., & Churchwell, E. 2000,
Protostars and Planets IV, 867
Richling, S., & Yorke, H. W. 1997, A&A, 327, 317
Ridge, N. A., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2921
Roberts, W. W. 1969, ApJ, 158, 123
Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., Wood, K., & Denzmore, P.
2006, ApJS, 167, 256
Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., & Wood, K. 2007, ApJS, 169,
328
Rodmann, J., Henning, T., Chandler, C. J., Mundy, L. G., & Wilner, D. J. 2006,
A&A, 446, 211
Rosolowsky, E. 2005, PASP, 117, 1403
Rosolowsky, E. W., Goodman, A. A., Wilner, D. J., & Williams, J. P. 1999, ApJ,
524, 887
Rosolowsky, E., Engargiola, G., Plambeck, R., & Blitz, L. 2003, ApJ, 599, 258
Ruffert, M., & Arnett, D. 1994, ApJ, 427, 351
Ryden, B. S. 1996, ApJ, 471, 822
Ryu, D., & Goodman, J. 1992, ApJ, 388, 438
Sagdeev, R. Z., & Galeev, A. A. 1969, Nonlinear Plasma Theory, New York:
Benjamin
Saigo, K., & Hanawa, T. 1998, ApJ, 493, 342
Sakamoto, K. 1996, ApJ, 471, 173
Sakamoto, K., Okumura, S. K., Ishizuki, S., & Scoville, N. Z. 1999, ApJS, 124,
403
Salmeron, R., & Wardle, M. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 45
Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161
Sanders, D. B., Scoville, N. Z., Tilanus, R. P. J., Wang, Z., & Zhou, S. 1993, AIP
Conf. Proc. 278: Back to the Galaxy, 278, 311
Sano, T., Inutsuka, S.-I., Turner, N. J., & Stone, J. M. 2004, ApJ, 605, 321
Sano, T., Miyama, S. M., Umebayashi, T., & Nakano, T. 2000, ApJ, 543, 486
Sano, T., & Stone, J. M. 2002, ApJ, 577, 534
Santillán, A., Kim, J., Franco, J., Martos, M., Hong, S. S., & Ryu, D. 2000, ApJ,
545, 353
Sasao, T. 1973, PASJ, 25, 1
Scalo, J. 1998a, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/9811341

Scalo, J. 1998b, ASP Conf. Ser. 142: The Stellar Initial Mass Function (38th
Herstmonceux Conference), 142, 201
Scalo, J., & Elmegreen, B. G. 2004, ARAA, 42, 275
Scalo, J., Vazquez-Semadeni, E., Chappell, D., & Passot, T. 1998, ApJ, 504, 835
Schaye, J. 2004, ApJ, 609, 667
Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,
Schmeja, S., & Klessen, R. S. 2004, A&A, 419, 405
Schmidt, M. 1959, ApJ, 129, 243
Schmidt, M. 1963, ApJ, 137, 758
Schneider, S., & Elmegreen, B. G. 1979, ApJS, 41, 87
Schuster, K. F., Kramer, C., Hitschfeld, M., Garcia-Burillo, S., & Mookerjea, B.
2007, A&A, 461, 143
Sellwood, J. A., & Balbus, S. A. 1999, ApJ, 511, 660
Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337
Shang, H., Allen, A., Li, Z.-Y., Liu, C.-F., Chou, M.-Y., & Anderson, J. 2006,
ApJ, 649, 845
Shang, H., Li, Z.-Y., & Hirano, N. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, B. Reipurth,
D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (eds.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 951 pp.,
2007., p.261-276, 261
She, Z.-S., & Leveque, E. 1994, Physical Review Letters, 72, 336
Shen, Y., Stone, J. M., & Gardiner, T. A. 2006, ApJ, 653, 513
Shepherd, D. 2005, IAU Symposium, 227, 237
Shepherd, D. S., & Churchwell, E. 1996, ApJ, 472, 225
Shetty, R., & Ostriker, E. C. 2006, ApJ, 647, 997
Shu, F. H. 1973, IAU Symp. 52: Interstellar Dust and Related Topics, 52, 257
Shu, F. H. 1974, A&A, 33, 55
Shu, F. H. 1977, ApJ, 214, 488
Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., & Lizano, S. 1987, ARAA, 25, 23
Shu, F. H., Laughlin, G., Lizano, S., & Galli, D. 2000, ApJ, 535, 190
Shu, F. H., & Li, Z.-Y. 1997, ApJ, 475, 251
Shu, F. H., Li, Z.-Y., & Allen, A. 2004, ApJ, 601, 930
Shu, F. H., Milione, V., & Roberts, W. W., Jr. 1973, ApJ, 183, 819
Shu, F. H., Najita, J., Ostriker, E. C., & Shang, H. 1995, ApJL, 455, L155
Shu, F., Najita, J., Ostriker, E., Wilkin, F., Ruden, S., & Lizano, S. 1994, ApJ,
429, 781
Shu, F. H., Najita, J. R., Shang, H., & Li, Z.-Y. 2000, Protostars and Planets
IV, 789
Shu, F. H., Ruden, S. P., Lada, C. J., & Lizano, S. 1991, ApJL, 370, L31
Sicilia-Aguilar, A., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 638, 897

Sicilia-Aguilar, A., Hartmann, L. W., Fürész, G., Henning, T., Dullemond, C.,
& Brandner, W. 2006b, AJ, 132, 2135
Silk, J. 1997, ApJ, 481, 703
Simon, M., & Prato, L. 1995, ApJ, 450, 824
Simon, R., Rathborne, J. M., Shah, R. Y., Jackson, J. M., & Chambers, E. T.
2006, ApJ, 653, 1325
Smith, M. D., Suttner, G., & Yorke, H. W. 1997, A&A, 323, 223
Sollins, P. K., Zhang, Q., Keto, E., & Ho, P. T. P. 2005, ApJL, 624, L49
Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., & Yahil, A. 1987, ApJ, 319, 730
Solomon, P. M., & Rivolo, A. R. 1989, ApJ, 339, 919
Solomon, P. M., Sanders, D. B., & Rivolo, A. R. 1985, ApJL, 292, L19
Springel, V., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629
Spruit, H. C. 1996, NATO ASIC Proc. 477: Evolutionary Processes in Binary
Stars, 249; see astro-ph/9602022
Sreenivasan, K. R., & Antonia, R. A. 1997, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics,
29, 435
Sridharan, T. K., Beuther, H., Saito, M., Wyrowski, F., & Schilke, P. 2005, ApJL,
634, L57
Stahler, S. W. 1983, ApJ, 274, 822
Stahler, S. W. 1988, ApJ, 332, 804
Stahler, S. W., Palla, F., & Ho, P. T. P. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, 327
Stahler, S. W., Shu, F. H., & Taam, R. E. 1980, ApJ, 241, 637
Stahler, S. W., Korycansky, D. G., Brothers, M. J., & Touma, J. 1994, ApJ, 431,
341
Stanke, T., Smith, M. D., Gredel, R., & Khanzadyan, T. 2006, A&A, 447, 609
Stark, A. A., & Lee, Y. 2006, ApJL, 641, L113
Stolte, A., Brandner, W., Brandl, B., & Zinnecker, H. 2006, AJ, 132, 253
Stone, J. M., & Balbus, S. A. 1996, ApJ, 464, 364
Stone, J. M., Gammie, C. F., Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 2000, Protostars
and Planets IV, 589
Stone, J. M., Hawley, J. F., Gammie, C. F., & Balbus, S. A. 1996, ApJ, 463, 656
Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C., & Gammie, C. F. 1998, ApJL, 508, L99
Strom, K. M., Strom, S. E., & Merrill, K. M. 1993, ApJ, 412, 233
Strong, A. W., & Mattox, J. R. 1996, A&A, 308, L21
Stutzki, J., & Guesten, R. 1990, ApJ, 356, 513
Stutzki, J., Bensch, F., Heithausen, A., Ossenkopf, V., & Zielinsky, M. 1998,
A&A, 336, 697
Tafalla, M., Mardones, D., Myers, P. C., Caselli, P., Bachiller, R., & Benson,
P. J. 1998, ApJ, 504, 900
Tafalla, M., Myers, P. C., Caselli, P., & Walmsley, C. M. 2004, A&A, 416, 191
Tan, J. C. 2000, ApJ, 536, 173

Tan, J. C., Krumholz, M. R., & McKee, C. F. 2006, ApJL, 641, L121
Tan, J. C., & McKee, C. F. 2001, Starburst Galaxies: Near and Far, 188
Tan, J. C., & McKee, C. F. 2003, IAU Symposium, 221, 274P
Tan, J. C., & McKee, C. F. 2004, ASP Conf. Ser. 322: The Formation and
Evolution of Massive Young Star Clusters, 322, 263
Tasker, E. J., & Bryan, G. L. 2006, ApJ, 641, 878
Tassis, K., & Mouschovias, T. C. 2004, ApJ, 616, 283
Teixeira, P. S., Lada, C. J., & Alves, J. F. 2005, ApJ, 629, 276
Terebey, S., Shu, F. H., & Cassen, P. 1984, ApJ, 286, 529
Testi, L., & Sargent, A. I. 1998, ApJL, 508, L91
Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2005, The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium,
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Tilley, D. A., & Pudritz, R. E. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 769
Tomisaka, K. 1991, ApJ, 376, 190
Tomisaka, K. 1998, ApJL, 502, L163
Tomisaka, K. 2002, ApJ, 575, 306
Tomisaka, K., Ikeuchi, S., & Nakamura, T. 1988, ApJ, 335, 239
Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217
Toomre, A. 1981, Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, 111
Turner, N. J., Quataert, E., & Yorke, H. W. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,
Turner, N. J., Sano, T., & Dziourkevitch, N. 2007, ApJ, 659, 729
Ulrich, R. K. 1976, ApJ, 210, 377
Umurhan, O. M., & Regev, O. 2004, A&A, 427, 855
van der Tak, F. F. S. 2005, IAU Symposium, 227, 70
van der Tak, F. F. S., & Menten, K. M. 2005, A&A, 437, 947
van Dishoeck, E. F., & Black, J. H. 1988, ApJ, 334, 771
Vazquez-Semadeni, E. 1994, ApJ, 423, 681
Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Klessen, R. S. 2003, ApJL, 585,
L131
Vazquez-Semadeni, E., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., & Rodriguez, L. F. 1997, ApJ,
474, 292
Vazquez-Semadeni, E., Canto, J., & Lizano, S. 1998, ApJ, 492, 596
Vázquez-Semadeni, E., & Garcı́a, N. 2001, ApJ, 557, 727
Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Gómez, G. C., Jappsen, A. K., Ballesteros-Paredes, J.,

González, R. F., & Klessen, R. S. 2007, ApJ, 657, 870
Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Kim, J., & Ballesteros-Paredes, J. 2005, ApJL, 630, L49
Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Kim, J., Shadmehri, M., & Ballesteros-Paredes, J. 2005a,
ApJ, 618, 344
Vazquez-Semadent, E., Passot, T., & Pouquet, A. 1995, ApJ, 441, 702
Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Ryu, D., Passot, T., González, R. F., & Gazol, A. 2006,
ApJ, 643, 245
Vestuto, J. G., Ostriker, E. C., & Stone, J. M. 2003, ApJ, 590, 858
Vogel, S. N., Kulkarni, S. R., & Scoville, N. Z. 1988, Nature, 334, 402
Vorobyov, E. I., & Basu, S. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 675
Vorobyov, E. I., & Basu, S. 2005, ApJL, 633, L137
Vorobyov, E. I., & Basu, S. 2006, ApJ, 650, 956
Wada, K. 2001, ApJL, 559, L41
Walawender, J., Bally, J., & Reipurth, B. 2005, AJ, 129, 2308
Walmsley, M. 1995, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference
Series, 1, 137
Walsh, W., Beck, R., Thuma, G., Weiss, A., Wielebinski, R., & Dumke, M. 2002,
A&A, 388, 7
Ward-Thompson, D., Andre, P., Crutcher, R., Johnstone, D., Onishi, T., &
Wilson, C. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, p. 33
White, R. J., & Basri, G. 2003, ApJ, 582, 1109
White, R. J., & Ghez, A. M. 2001, ApJ, 556, 265
White, R. J., Greene, T. P., Doppmann, G. W., Covey, K. R., & Hillenbrand,
L. A. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil
(eds.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 951 pp., 2007., p.117-132, 117
White, R. J., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2004, ApJ, 616, 998
Whitehouse, S. C., & Bate, M. R. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 32
Whitney, B. A., Robitaille, T. P., Indebetouw, R., Wood, K., Bjorkman, J. E.,
& Denzmore, P. 2005, IAU Symposium, 227, 206
Whitworth, A. 1979, MNRAS, 186, 59
Whitworth, A., Bate, M. R., Nordlund, Å., Reipurth, B., & Zinnecker, H. 2007,
Protostars and Planets V, 459
Whitworth, A., & Summers, D. 1985, MNRAS, 214, 1
Whitworth, A. P., & Zinnecker, H. 2004, A&A, 427, 299
Williams, J. P., Blitz, L., & McKee, C. F. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV, 97
Williams, J. P., Blitz, L., & Stark, A. A. 1995, ApJ, 451, 252
Williams, J. P., de Geus, E. J., & Blitz, L. 1994, ApJ, 428, 693
Williams, J. P., & McKee, C. F. 1997, ApJ, 476, 166
Wilner, D. J., D’Alessio, P., Calvet, N., Claussen, M. J., & Hartmann, L. 2005,
ApJL, 626, L109
Wilson, B. A., Dame, T. M., Masheder, M. R. W., & Thaddeus, P. 2005, A&A,
430, 523
Wolfire, M. G., & Cassinelli, J. P. 1987, ApJ, 319, 850
Wolfire, M. G., McKee, C. F., Hollenbach, D., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2003, ApJ,
587, 278
Wolk, S. J., & Walter, F. M. 1996, AJ, 111, 2066
Wong, T., & Blitz, L. 2002, ApJ, 569, 157
Wood, D. O. S., & Churchwell, E. 1989, ApJS, 69, 831
Wu, J., Evans, N. J., II, Gao, Y., Solomon, P. M., Shirley, Y. L., & Vanden Bout,
P. A. 2005, ApJL, 635, L173
Wu, Y., Wei, Y., Zhao, M., Shi, Y., Yu, W., Qin, S., & Huang, M. 2004, A&A,
426, 503
Wuchterl, G., & Tscharnuter, W. M. 2003, A&A, 398, 1081
Wyse, R. F. G. 1986, ApJL, 311, L41
Wyse, R. F. G., & Silk, J. 1989, ApJ, 339, 700
Yorke, H. W., & Bodenheimer, P. 1999, ApJ, 525, 330
Yorke, H. W., & Richling, S. 2002, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica
Conference Series, 12, 92
Yorke, H. W., & Sonnhalter, C. 2002, ApJ, 569, 846
Yorke, H. W., Tenorio-Tagle, G., Bodenheimer, P., & Rozyczka, M. 1989, A&A,
216, 207
Zinnecker, H. 1982, New York Academy Sciences Annals, 395, 226
Zuckerman, B., & Palmer, P. 1974, ARAA, 12, 279
Zweibel, E. G. 2002, ApJ, 567, 962
Zweibel, E. G., & McKee, C. F. 1995, ApJ, 439, 779
Zhang, Q. 2005, IAU Symposium, 227, 135
Zhang, Q., & Fall, S. M. 1999, ApJL, 527, L81

Star Formation Theories PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Star Formation Theories PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Theory of Star Formation 1

Theory of Star Formation∗

BASIC PHYSICAL PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

MACROPHYSICS OF STAR FORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Formation, Evolution, and Destruction of GMCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

MICROPHYSICS OF STAR FORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

OVERVIEW OF THE STAR FORMATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

2 BASIC PHYSICAL PROCESSES

is that order nevertheless persists as scale-dependent spatial correlations among

clouds, there is as yet no simple conceptual theory to characterize the energy

exponents from the value p/3, and in non-Gaussian tails of velocity-increment

situation is to have an imbalance in the flux of Alfvén waves propagating “up-

or ℓs ≈ ℓ0 [cs /v(ℓ0 )]2 when q ≈ 1/2. Density perturbations with characteristic

can have relatively large ionization fraction due to UV photoionization, whereas

−(x ± |µx |)2

dominated by a small number of large-amplitude modes (i.e. large “cosmic vari-

for MF = 0.5 − 2.5.

purely random motions of gas particles in a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution or

numerical simulations (Ostriker, Stone, & Gammie, 2001; Vázquez-Semadeni &

fact it determines the acceleration of the expansion or contraction—Ballesteros-

possible in magnetically subcritical clouds (M < MΦ ); keep in mind, however,

P (r) = Kρ(r)γp , (19)

1951a,b); this is equivalent to assuming that the random dynamical motions

as in the case of the virial theorem, the microturbulent approximation becomes

(thermal/nonthermal) model, in which the density is assumed to be given by

The corresponding Jeans mass is MJ ≡ (4π/3)(λJ /2)3 ρ = 2.47MBE , where we

the Jeans length is defined in terms of the midplane density ρc . An isothermal

2.3 Magnetic Fields

of the mass of a GMC, as much as ∼ 90%. FUV photoionization slows ambipolar

if the ionization is dominated by molecular ions (including PAHs), where α is

3 MACROPHYSICS OF STAR FORMATION

3.1 Physical State of GMCs, Clumps, and Cores

subtracting the neutral atomic hydrogen (H I) contribution. With this technique,

however, column densities there will be underestimated. Near-infrared extinction

observed (Vogel, Kulkarni, & Scoville, 1988; Sakamoto et al., 1999).

the abundance is known. Such observations of a sample of GMCs in the outer

of ∼ 20 km s−1 with no stellar feedback, Vázquez-Semadeni et al. (2007) find

objects (Keto & Field, 2005).

3.2 Formation, Evolution, and Destruction of GMCs

Turbulent velocity dispersions and magnetic field strengths are observed to be

3.3 Core Mass Functions and the IMF

models from a grid-based code.

at densities above nH = nc ≈ 106 cm−3 results in a shift from weakly-decreasing

3.4 The Large-Scale Rate of Star Formation

order of magnitude or more to ∼ 0.1. Quiescent cores have individual lifetimes of

4 MICROPHYSICS OF STAR FORMATION

4.1 Low-Mass Star Formation

Effects of Magnetic Fields Poloidal magnetic fields prevent gravitational

term a “pseudodisk” since it is not rotationally supported. The calculations of

radius from which the star accretes is

2 4πφBH ρG2 m2∗

Unfortunately, the geometry of the source can confound this classification

(i.e., those with significant molecular envelopes) in Taurus is about 0.5 − 1 L⊙

4.2 Disks and Winds

resolution submillimeter continuum observations that indicate average (dust) disk

ble to investigate mechanisms in each class using high-resolution time-dependent

Hydrodynamic Mechanisms The simplest transport mechanisms would be

numerical simulations with turbulence driven by convection that angular mo-

MHD Mechanisms The introduction of magnetic fields considerably alters

to a powerful local instability – now generically referred to as the magnetorota-

irradiation maintains the temperature above ∼ 2000K, so MRI can operate. In

Self-Gravitational Mechanisms Accretion disks that have sufficiently small